Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

British Virgin Islands (Comprehensive School and Roads)

Mr. Marten: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what help is proposed for comprehensive schools and roads in the British Virgin Islands.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Overseas Development (Mr. Albert E. Oram): A C.D. and W. grant of £78,850 was approved in December, 1966, for the construction of a comprehensive school of 800 places in Road Town and building is expected to start shortly. C.D. and W. grants totalling over £244,000 have been made for road development since 1st April, 1965.

Mr. Marten: I am grateful for that Answer. Would not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that, if Colonies like this, which have been very loyal, are to become viable entities, we must concentrate more on infrastructures such as these? Now that we have fewer Colonies, could these Colonies get more of a share?

Mr. Oram: Although we have fewer Colonies, we have just the same number of anxious recipients of our aid and I would not like to be too forthcoming in answer to that supplementary question.

Bihar

Mr. William Price: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what aid the Government will give to the State of Bihar.

The Minister of Overseas Development (Mr. Arthur Bottomley): British aid is not given to individual Indian States.

But because of India's special difficulties, particularly the need for foreign exchange to import food, we have offered to relieve India of debt payments of £11·5 million currently due to us. We are urging other countries to follow our example by untying aid in this way.

Mr. Price: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that that Answer will give some satisfaction to those of us who feel deeply about the tragedy of Bihar? Will he keep under consideration any practical help which can be given in the way of food direct to these tragic people?

Mr. Bottomley: Yes, but we are not a food-exporting nation and, therefore, the aid that we give in the form of industrial equipment and such things, by saving the Indians from spending foreign exchange in other ways, helps to provide food for the Indians.

Mr. Tilney: Has not the water-table in Bihar fallen by about 30 ft.? Has not the whole situation in Bihar been greatly aggravated by the closure of the Suez Canal?

Mr. Bottomley: That is a point of view which can be put forward.

India and Pakistan

Mr. Patrick Wall: asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether the negotiations with India and Pakistan about aid for 1967–68 have yet been concluded; how much aid will be given to these countries; and in what form and on what terms this aid will be given.

Mr. Hamling: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what proposals he will make to increase aid to India and Pakistan in the year 1967–68.

Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman will now have seen my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Dr. Ernest A. Davies) on 15th June about aid for Pakistan.
As regards India, the position remains as given in my reply to the hon. Member for Torquay (Sir Frederic Bennett) on 4th May.—[Vol. 748, c. 133; Vol. 746, c. 711–12.]

Mr. Wall: Although the Minister gave the total amount of aid, he did not say in what form and under what terms the


aid will be given. Is it to be given for specific projects?

Mr. Bottomley: No. The Indians themselves are responsible for deciding how and in what form the aid should be used.

Nigeria (Overseas Civil Servants' Supplementary Allowance)

Mr. Tilney: asked the Minister for Overseas Development whether he will consider back dating from 1st January, 1967, to 1st July, 1965, the supplementary allowance to six officers of Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service employed in the Nigerian Institute for Trypanosomiasis Research and the Nigerian Institute for Oil Palm Research, whose brother officers have already received the allowance for the previous 18 months, and whose exclusion appears to have been due to an administrative oversight.

Mr. Oram: No, Sir. Since these men are not Nigerian civil servants, we cannot pay them allowances from July, 1965, under the Nigerian Public Service Scheme. They are being paid from January, 1967, as their Institutes concluded agreements with us during that month.

Mr. Tilney: Why, then, do they contribute to the pension and widows' and orphans' fund and are regarded as members of Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service? Is not this the worst possible advertisement for volunteering for research work overseas?

Mr. Oram: We can deal with these men only in agreement with the Nigerian authorities. We had to deal with these Institutes separately from the public service. These men are not civil servants in the public service. We must abide by the date when agreement on this separate scheme was reached?

Mr. Tilney: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

St. Kitts, Nevis and Anguilla

Mr. Fisher: asked the Minister of Overseas Development if he will increase aid to St. Kitts for the specific purpose of

economic development in Nevis and Anguilla.

Mr. Oram: I am sorry that I cannot increase the amount of aid already promised to St. Kitts, Nevis and Anguilla.

Mr. Fisher: Bearing in mind that many of the political frustrations in these two islands, as we have seen recently, may well be due to the lack of basic economic facilities for tourism, such as water, electricity, roads and the rest, will not the hon. Gentleman look into the matter again?

Mr. Oram: We are aware of the difficulties here, and we are prepared to discuss with the State Government the purposes to which our aid is put. We can certainly ask them to ensure that the needs of Anguilla are not overlooked.

Mr. Wood: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the concern about the situation in Anguilla? Is it not difficult to see how, in the existing circumstances, any aid given to the St. Kitts Government will reach the island of Anguilla?

Mr. Oram: The Government of St. Kitts, Nevis and Anguilla are responsible for their own financial affairs. I have said that we are willing to take the matter up with them, but I do not think that we can do more.

International Development Association (Funds)

Mr. Higgins: asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether negotiations between the World Bank and contributors to the International Development Association have yet taken place as regards the replenishment of the funds of the International Development Association; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Maclennan: asked the Minister of Overseas Development if he is satisfied with the progress of negotiations on the replenishment of funds for the International Development Association; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Bottomley: No clear basis on which it might be possible to reach agreement has yet emerged. Her Majesty's Government are anxious to reach a settlement quickly because the


need of developing countries for further commitments of I.D.A. funds is very great.

Mr. Higgins: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, as I.D.A. loans are untied, the United Kingdom wins about 30s. worth of export orders for every 20s. contributed? In view of that, will he resist any tendency on the part of the Chancellor to cut aid plans and, more than that, press for an expansion of contributions to the I.D.A.?

Mr. Bottomley: We are agreed that there is a need to replenish the funds of the I.D.A., and I hope, of course, that it will be at a greater amount than at present.

Mr. Maclennan: Will my right hon. Friend resist any pressures which may be put on the Government to tie the funds?

Mr. Bottomley: Yes, Sir; I think that it would be much better to have these funds untied.

Mr. Wood: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by "quickly"? He said last winter that the funds should be substantially replenished. We are now past Midsummer Day. When shall we have a decision on it?

Mr. Bottomley: There are many other parties concerned in the question of replenishment of funds. From the point of view of the British Government, we hope that it will be brought about as speedily as possible.

Overseas Aid

Mr. Luard: asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether he will now give a firm forecast of the figure of British foreign aid in the current financial year.

Mr. Bottomley: Our target for aid programme expenditures in the current financial year is £205 million, but the actual rate of expenditure during the year depends largely on the progress of projects and other factors in recipient countries, not under Her Majesty's Government's control.

Mr. Luard: Does my right hon. Friend recall that, when the Labour Government first came to power, one of their main

claims was that they would undertake a continuing increase in the amount of money devoted to aid and development schemes? When the cuts were made last year, the impression was given that it would be a once-for-all cutback? Does my right hon. Friend realise that there will be widespread disappointment that there is not to be a restoration to the previous level in the coming year?

Mr. Bottomley: There has been a continual increase in aid commitments by this Government until the necessary cuts last year following our economic difficulties. I assure my hon. Friend that I have much sympathy with his point of view and will continue to press it.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Might not some of the aid which is being paid to Tanzania be used to compensate the owners of the nationalised property?

Mr. Bottomley: The aid is not being paid to Tanzania.

Mr. Wood: asked the Minister of Overseas Development where the cuts in overseas aid to developing countries for the year 1967–68 will be made.

Mr. Bottomley: I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the replies given to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) on 24th October and to the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) on 22nd November last.—[Vol. 734, c. 118 and 270.]

Mr. Wood: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that disappointment at the reduced figure is increased by the rise in costs and, therefore, the reduced value of the aid below what it would otherwise have been? When may we expect to know about the prospects for 1968–69?

Mr. Bottomley: As regards the prospects, the Government are at the moment considering their estimates, and I hope in due course to be in a position to report to the House the result of the investigation.

Mr. Wood: asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether he will give an assurance that in accordance with the pledge given at the 1964 United Nations Commission for Trade and Development Conference, Great Britain will continue to supply financial resources to the developing countries of a minimum


net amount of 1 per cent. of the national income in terms of the criteria agreed at this United Nations Commission for Trade and Development Conference.

Mr. Bottomley: We have consistently done better than 1 per cent. and our aim is to continue to do so.

Mr. Wood: Is the Minister aware that a number of us are becoming bemused by the different figures he has given to hon. Members, all of which in their turn differ from the figure given in the O.E.C.D. Development Review? May we have a single standard so that we can judge the Government's performance?

Mr. Bottomley: The reason is that the figures vary constantly in the official reports as well. Our performance in relation to the target for the years 1962–65 is as follows: 1962, 1·14 per cent.; 1963, 1·04 per cent.; 1964, 1·22 per cent.; and 1965, 1·26 per cent.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is not the Government's task in meeting the 1 per cent. target being made much easier by their failure to increase the gross national product?

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what is the value of the aid which will be given in 1967 to countries that have broken diplomatic relations with the United Kingdom or are boycotting British goods.

Mr. Bottomley: As regards the first part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the Question by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter).
On the second part of the Question I understand that certain of the Arab countries have said they will boycott British goods, but the extent to which they are doing so is not clear.

Mr. Goodhart: While no one wants aid to be turned on or off in response to odd political speeches, does the Minister appreciate that the continued subsidisation of countries which show their continued hostility to us undermines public support in this country for the many worth-while projects he supports elsewhere?

Mr. Bottomley: Yes, Sir. That is so. I have drawn the attention of many of our friends overseas to this fact.

Mr. Pavitt: Will my right hon. Friend resist any pressures to have strings, political or otherwise, attached to the kind of aid which we give to all underdeveloped countries?

Mr. Wall: Does the Minister agree that, while aid is essential to the underdeveloped countries, it must be dependent on the proper treatment of British subjects and British firms?

Mr. Bottomley: Yes, Sir. We shall, of course, expect British interests to be suitably treated—certainly with justice.

Overseas Students (Technical Training)

Sir G. Sinclair: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what steps he has taken to supplement Her Majesty's Government's assistance to technical training in the developing countries by sponsoring overseas students for courses provided here or projected under the Industrial Training Act.

Mr. Oram: The Ministry sponsors overseas students under technical assistance on a wide variety of courses in technical training. In addition, a new scheme has been devised, after consultation with industrial training boards, the Confederation of British Industry and the T.U.C., under which the Ministry of Labour hopes to find training places in British industry for several hundreds of additional students from developing countries each year.

Sir G. Sinclair: I welcome that statement on the new scheme, but how soon does the Minister hope to have any results from it, and have the participating Governments yet been circularised?

Mr. Oram: All suitable publicity has been given to the scheme, but, as it was started only recently, it is too early yet to make an appraisal of its results.

Agricultural Research Council, Salisbury (Grant)

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Overseas Development why the British grant to the Agricultural Research Council in Salisbury, Rhodesia, has been terminated; and what effects this will have on the development of African farming.

Mr. Bottomley: Zambia is withdrawing from the Agricultural Research Council of Central Africa, of which the other members are Rhodesia and Malawi. We could net agree to continue to support on a two-country basis a Council whose work would be located almost wholly in Rhodesia.
The research so far undertaken by the Council will be published and will be available for the benefit of African farmers. The extent to which the work can continue will depend upon retention of staff and provision of research facilities.

Mr. Wall: Is not this a wholly political decision. forcing the centre to close to the detriment of all farming in Central Africa'? Can the right hon. Gentleman say, for example, how the animal productivity study, which is so important to Zambia, will be continued?

Mr. Bottomley: The original undertaking was that support should be given to this institution, which was being worked on a three-country basis. Now that that no longer operates, it is up to the Government to see the best possible way in which we can further the interests of all the countries concerned, and we think that it can be done best by recognising that it is time we ought not to support the activities of an illegal régime.

Tanzania (Expatriate Officers' Pensions)

Mr. Tilney: asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether, following the request by the Government of Tanzania to Her Majesty's Government to assume responsibility for the pensions of those expatriate officers who served under the colonial régime in Tanganyika, he will assure all such pensioners that there will be no hiatus in the payment of their pensions.

Mr. Oram: The Tanzanian Government have said that, without prejudice to the outcome of their representations, they are continuing provisions for pensions payments to their Estimates for 1967–68,which have now been approved.

Mr. Tilney: Is it not true that the Government of Tanzania hope, and have so requested, that the British Government will take over the pensions awarded before independence?

Mr. Oram: They have made representations to that effect. Pending the discussions which will result, I am confident that the Government of Tanzania will continue to honour their obligations.

Jordan

Mr. Hooley: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what emergency aid the Government will now give to relieve the plight of refugees from the west bank of the Jordan.

Mr. Bottomley: I would refer my hon. Friend to the replies which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and I gave to my hon. Friends the Members for Hornchurch (Mr. Alan Lee Williams) and for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Colin Jackson) on 19th June, and also to the answer which my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) on 26th June.—[Vol. 748, c. 178 and c. 197.] [Vol. 749, c. 16–17.]

Mr. Hooley: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, though I cannot carry the figures in my head. Will the British Government's contributions be over and above the aid programme already budgeted for this year?

Mr. Bottomley: No, I cannot say that it will be over and above the aid programme; it has to come within the ceiling of the aid programme as at present fixed.

Mr. Tilney: Is there any scheme for those who want to volunteer from this country to help the refugees?

Mr. Bottomley: I am sure that the voluntary organisations which undertake this work would be willing to consider any proposition put to them.

Mr. Shinwell: Will my right hon. Friend take it that we shall all welcome whatever aid can be provided for those Jordan refugees on the west bank, but has he any information about the amount and nature of aid being provided by Arab countries, particularly those in possession of oil revenues, which are, in fact, responsible for much of the trouble?

Mr. Bottomley: The part that concerns me is the aid which Her Majesty's


Government are prepared to give, and I can say that in the case of Jordan we have given as far as it is possible for us to do so.

Mr. Onslow: If this sum comes from within the budget already provided for this year, what cuts are being made elsewhere to compensate?

Mr. Bottomley: It is not a question of making cuts. It is a question of looking at the programme as a whole and slowing down the programme to meet any other further calls which may be made upon it.

Mr. Judd: asked the Minister of Overseas Development on what aid development criteria the Government grant of £500,000 to the Jordanian Government following the recent Arab/ Israeli conflict was based.

Mr. Bottomley: For many years past Her Majesty's Government have helped the Jordan Government to maintain essential services and to develop the country's resources in accordance with accepted aid criteria. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that in the situation which has now arisen, and to enable the Jordan Government to resume that development, there is pressing need for the supplementary assistance which we have offered them for rehabilitation and reconstruction projects.

Mr. Judd: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, however urgently needed and important this grant was, it was motivated by political factors and had very little to do with overseas aid and development, and therefore should not have been offered through his Ministry?

Mr. Bottomley: That is partly so, but I did tell my hon. Friend that the aid was for rehabilitation and reconstruction, and is therefore concerned with development work.

Mr. Crawshaw: Does my right hon. Friend agree that whilst most countries can find unlimited money to finance wars they seem little prepared to find money to remove the causes of those wars? Whilst one appreciates the help being given in this instance, could not we do more to try to solve the problem so that the seeds of a future war are not kept there in the Middle East?

Mr. Bottomley: Those are sentiments that could be uttered by us all.

Dr. Ernest A. Davies: In view of the present difficulties in Jordan, will the Minister say if there are any particular purposes for which the grant is being used in the short term?

Mr. Bottomley: As a result of a request from the Jordan Prime Minister, we have agreed that the first instalment of £250,000 should be spent on the construction of agricultural roads in the areas where refugees are being sheltered.

Diplomatic Relations

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Overseas Development which countries which have broken off diplomatic relations with the United Kingdom are in receipt of British aid; and whether it is intended to continue to give this aid.

Mr. Bottomley: Syria, Iraq and the Sudan—which notified Her Majesty's Government earlier this month that they were breaking diplomatic relations with Britain—have been in receipt of British aid. We are reviewing the question of future aid to these countries. Of the nine other countries which broke off relation as some previous time, six have been in receipt of British aid. I shall, with permission, publish the details in the
OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is it not very demeaning for this country to go on providing aid to countries which have shown their attitude to us by breaking off diplomatic relations? How does the Minister secure that the aid is not misappropriated when there are no British representatives on the spot to check the expenditure?

Mr. Bottomley: Technical assistance officers have already been withdrawn from Syria and Iraq. The House will agree that the wisest course is not invariably to leap to decisions in these cases but to try to damp down the retaliations rather than encourage them.

Mr. William Price: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that destitute children and old people are not always responsible for the actions of politicians, either in this country or abroad, and that diplomatic disputes are no excuse for failing to face up to our responsibilities?

Mr. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is quite right, but I do not think that it is fair for him to say that we are not facing up to our responsibilities. There are others who should do that as well.

Mr. Fortescue: Is it not true that although the Sudan has broken off diplomatic relations with us the Ambassador and all his staff are still there, and the Embassy is still operating perfectly normally?

Mr. Bottomley: indicated assent.

Following is the information:


AID DISBURSED IN 1966–67 TO THOSE COUNTRIES WHICH HAVE BROKEN OFF DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS


£'000



Financial Aid
Technical Assistance
Total



Grants
Loans


Syria
—
—
53
53


Iraq
—
—
31
31


Sudan
—

1,355

114
1,469


U.A.R.
—
—
2
2


Algeria
—
—
—
—


Mauritania
—
—
—
—


Mali
—
—
5
5


Guinea
—
—
1
1


Congo (B)
—
—
6
6


Tanzania

43


1,256

2,189
3,488


Somalia
—
—
0·3
0·3


Guatemala
—
—
—
—

Technical Experts (Co-operative Society Principles and Practice)

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what facilities are available to experts contracted to give technical assistance in the fields of agriculture, banking, insurance, consumers stores and rural development to have short courses on the history, law and principles and practice of co-operative societies.

Mr. Oram: If the tasks for which such experts were recruited required knowledge of these matters which the expert did not already have, the Ministry would be prepared to consider arranging suitable instruction at a competent institution such as the Co-operative College or Plunkett Foundation.

Mr. Pavitt: While I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him to expedite the matter further, especially with a view to giving the necessary publicity to the fact that this kind of facility will be available from his Ministry?

Mr. Oram: I think that my hon. Friend knows that the Advisory Committee on Co-operatives is at present considering various initiatives, and we are in close touch with the Principal of the Co-operative College, but I would prefer to say no more. I cannot anticipate what the discussions will lead to.

India (Five-Year Plan)

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what help he has given to India in the formation and organisation of their five-year economic plan.

Mr. Bottomley: None, Sir. My hon. Friend will appreciate that the preparation of India's five-year plans is entirely the responsibility of the Indian Government.

Mr. Pavitt: But is my right hon. Friend aware that if Britain enters the Common Market that will affect India's five-year plan to the extent of 40 per cent. of its overseas trade? Will he therefore now seek immediate negotiations to make sure that there will be no detriment to India?

Mr. Bottomley: The Commonwealth countries concerned are aware of the negotiations with the Common Market and are kept informed.

Malta, Gibraltar and India

Mr. Judd: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what is the current value of United Kingdom aid and development programmes in Malta, Gibraltar and Indiaper capitaof their respective populations.

Mr. Bottomley: The figures are approximately: Malta, £18 4s. Od.; Gibraltar, £21 11 s. Od.; and India, 2s.

Mr. Judd: Does my hon. Friend agree, in relation to his Answer to Question No. 23, that this is again an example of political distortion of genuine overseas aid and development priorities, and that the Government should finance political needs and pressures in other ways?

Mr. Bottomley: My hon. Friend will appreciate that the population of India is so vast that, in total, the aid we give is very high. But I agree that we should try to do more.

Fiji (Tourist Industry)

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what request he has received from Fiji for the support of its tourist industry; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Bottomley: None, Sir. I would be willing to consider a request if it were made.

Mr. Irvine: In view of the great experience of the Minister's Department in these matters, is it not time for him to have a look at the Report on the travel and tourist industry in Fiji, published as long ago as September 1965?

Mr. Bottomley: We have seen that Report, and I repeat that if we got a request we should consider the proposition.

Tonga (New Hospital)

Dame Joan Vickers: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what action has been taken by him to help with the provision of a new hospital, with a ward for mental patients, in Tonga.

Mr. Bottomley: Within the last few days a grant of £195,200 has been approved towards the cost of construction of the new Vaiola hospital in Tonga.
There is in the plans of the Tonga Government for this hospital no special provision for mental patients.

Dame Joan Vickers: While I thank the Minister for that reply, may I remind him that the mental patients are now going to the prison? Does not he think that it is essential if a new hospital is being constructed that there should be a special ward for these people?

Mr. Bottomley: I know of the hon. Lady's great interest in these matters, and I share her sympathy, but it is a matter for the Tonga Government.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Would the Minister suggest to the Government of Tonga that one way of helping their citizens would be to bring their law up to date?

Mr. Boffomley: I am sure that note will be taken of that.

Tonga (Teacher Training College)

Dame Joan Vickers: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what action he has taken in regard to the teacher training college, including the provision of a printing press, in Tonga.

Mr. Bottomley: If the Government of Tonga decides to ask for our help in acquiring a printing press for the college I should be pleased to consider it.

Dame Joan Vickers: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for sending a special representative to Tonga. I am sure that he knows that Tonga has been requesting a printing press for some considerable time. I have made certain suggestions to him. Will he reconsider them?

Mr. Boffomley: I certainly will consider the suggestions made by the hon. Lady.

Mr. Baxter: Might I associate myself with the request? It is very desirable that someone with some authority should go to Tonga to try to help it get over some of the very considerable problems which it has at the moment and which it will have difficulty in solving without some sensible advice.

Mr. Bottomley: I take note of what has been said.

Eastern Caribbean (Tripartite Survey)

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what support he has given to the recommendations of the Tripartite Economic Survey of the Eastern Caribbean of April, 1966; and what further steps he is proposing to take.

Mr. Oram: We generally support the the recommendations of the Tripartite Survey and hope, with the co-operation of the islands and in consultation with the United States and Canada, to apply our development aid in accordance with them.
We support the proposal that the islands should set up a Regional Development Agency and have offered 500,000 Eastern Caribbean dollars towards the cost of its activities. With the support of Britain, the United States and Canada, all Commonwealth Caribbean countries


have requested the United Nations Development Programme to study the possibility of establishing a Caribbean Development Bank.

Mr. Irvine: As it is now 10 months since the hon. Gentleman said that he would try to follow the recommendations of the Report, and in view of the importance of the Report to the area, may I ask him to give continued attention to these recommendations?

Mr. Oram: Yes, Sir; we are certainly giving attention to the Report. We are awaiting the Report about the Caribbean Development Bank.

Marine Science

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what study he is making of the potential benefit of the British marine science programme to food problems in developing countries.

Mr. Oram: The Oceanography and Fisheries Committee of the Natural Environment Research Council has already considered the question of assistance to fisheries research and development in developing countries and the matter is to be considered again at its next meeting. Our Fisheries Adviser sits as an assessor on that Committee and the Ministry is therefore well placed to study the potential benefit of any British marine science programme to food production in developing countries.

Mr. Dalyell: Am I right in thinking that that was an extremely helpful Answer and that the Government are taking the matter seriously?

Mr. Oram: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what are his proposals for an international marine science programme, with a view to promoting projects of desalination of sea-water and the increased production of fish protein concentrate in developing countries.

Mr. Oram: None, Sir, but I shall be interested in any proposals that my hon. Friend may put forward.

Mr. Dalyell: Although I understand that basically the Ministry of Technology is responsible here, is my hon. Friend aware that the progress with desalination

techniques over the last two years has made possible from an economic point of view things which were not possible even two years ago, and will he look into the work that the Ministry of Technology and the Atomic Energy Authority are doing?

Mr. Oram: We are in touch with the Ministry of Technology. In so far as the fortunes of developing countries are concerned, I recognise that progress is being made in this matter.

Sir B. Craddock: Would the hon. Gentleman look at the very interesting article in The Times today on desalination, with particular reference to helping Israel and the Arab countries in this way?

Mr. Oram: I have not seen the article, but I shall certainly take the hint.

Tropical Products Research Institute

Mr. Hooley: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what is the contribution of his Department to the budget of the Tropical Products Research Institute during the current financial year; and what plans he has to increase this contribution next year.

Mr. Oram: The Department's expenditure on the Tropical Products Institute in this financial year is £444,000. We intend to increase this expenditure next year.

Mr. Hooley: Will my hon. Friend accept that we very greatly welcome his Answer and agree that the Institute does extremely valuable work for developing countries?

Mr. Oram: Indeed, it is an admirable institute. That is why we look forward to the expansion of its work.

Oral Answers to Questions — ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

European Economic Community

Mr. McMaster: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will initiate a separate inquiry into the effect which Great Britain's entry into the Common Market would have in less properous parts of Great Britain and Northern


Ireland, particularly the effects of the increased food prices anticipated by Her Majesty's Government where this represents the main element in the cost of living for families and others on small fixed incomes.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. Peter Shore): No, Sir. A separate inquiry, directed particularly at the effects of increased food prices on these areas would not be fruitful since it would not be possible to disentangle the effects from the overall consequences of Great Britain's entry into the European Economic Community In any case, the economic circumstances of the development areas should improve substantially during the next few years as a result of the Government's measures and particularly the regional employment premium announced by my right hon. Friend on 5th June.

Mr. McMaster: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are many people on small fixed incomes, including pensioners, who will not be affected by the regional employment premium, except perhaps adversely, in those areas, and that an increase in the price of food of 12 per cent. will represent a very much higher increase in the cost of living for these people than the 1–2 per cent. forecast for the rest of the population?

Mr. Shore: As the hon. Gentleman will recall, my right hon. Friend addressed himself to this problem during the recent debate on our application for entry to the European Economic Community, and said then that, should there be a disproportionate burden falling on sections of the community, there would have to be community action in this country to assist them.

Mr. McMaster: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will take steps to ensure that the British Government will be free, should Great Britain join the Common Market, to continue present steps or to adopt additional measures, as necessary, to protect existing, and to create new employment and otherwise economically to assist development areas in Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Mr. Shore: My right hon. Friend is confident that membership of the European Economic Community will not pre-

vent the Government from pursuing policies which will be fully adequate to deal with present regional problems and any which are likely to arise in the future.

Mr. McMaster: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the investment allowances, the special factory programme and particularly the regional employment premium will be allowed under the Treaty of Rome?

Mr. Shore: Our studies of the Rome Treaty certainly do not suggest that there is anything there that precludes measures which are specifically designed to help regions with special problems. Our studies of the actual practices of the Six since the formation of the Common Market also suggest that there has been a fairly liberal interpretation of what is permissible under the general heading of regional policy.

Regional Employment Premium

Mr. Barnett: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs on what research his recommendations for the regional employment premium were based.

Mr. Shore: The analytical background to the regional employment premium proposal was given in the Green Paper and some major points were expanded in the White Paper, Cmnd. 3310.

Mr. Barnett: Is it not a fact that there is no evidence in the Green Paper or the White Paper that any basic research was done to ascertain the practical reasons that make businessmen move into particular areas?

Mr. Shore: I think that my hon. Friend has in mind a much more far-reaching inquiry into the location of industry generally. While I would certainly agree that it is desirable that we should know a good deal more about this, he would be wrong to assume that we have not some knowledge of the matter and that studies are not proceeding.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Envelopes (Postal Charges)

Mr. Turton: asked the Postmaster-General what steps he is taking to inform the public of his proposal to impose


higher postal charges in 1968 on envelopes which do not conform to a specified shape.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Edward Short): A publicity campaign to inform our customers will be launched within the next two or three months.

Mr. Turton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great deal of ignorance about the new surcharge that is coming and that it will affect the private sector much more than business people, especially old people who are using old-fashioned stationery?

Mr. Short: I agree. So far our efforts have been directed to informing the trade. Clearly had we had a general publicity campaign before supplies were available, the retail trade would have suffered. This problem is now being overcome, and we shall direct our publicity to the public in general.

Mr. Bryan: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House the exact date or give some guidance about when these changes may take place?

Mr. Short: There is no change in the date. It is as it was announced previously.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE

House of Commons (Members' Telephone Exchange)

Sir C. Osborne: asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that the Members' telephone exchange in the House of Commons is overworked and understaffed; that eight men are away from duty, that understaffing has existed for over a year; that operatives refuse to move from normal night-shift duty elsewhere because this involves a reduction of 12s. a week in wages; and what action he will take to remedy the situation.

Mr. Edward Short: The telephone service is a matter for the Authorities of the House to whom the Post Office lends staff. There have been deficiencies in the Members' telephone service because of insufficient response to invitations to do these jobs. I intend to review the present arrangements and advise the House Authorities on how they can best be improved.
I am sorry if hon. Members have been put to any inconvenience.

Sir C. Osborne: Is not the Postmaster-General aware that the servants of the House are frustrated and angry and that their anger is caused by the stupidity of the morning sittings and the absurdity of keeping the House sitting through the whole night as well? Will he do something for these very good servants of the House, many of whom are ready to chuck their hand in?

Mr. Short: The main point of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is not a matter for me, but I agree that he has a point. There is one specific grievance, I agree, that telephonists here have. Under an arbitration award of 1962, telephonists outside get 12s. for night work. Telephonists in this House do not get it.[HoN. MEMBERS: "Why?"] The conditions are different. There is less weekend work here, and rarely do we go through the night. But I agree that the hon. Gentleman has a point there.

Oral Answers to Questions — WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

Pirate Broadcasting Stations

Mr. McNamara: asked the Postmaster-General what steps he is taking to prevent funds from inside the United Kingdom being used to finance pirate radio in broadcasting programmes aiding and abetting the policies of the rebellious régime in Rhodesia; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Edward Short: The way to stop objectionable broadcasting of this kind is to silence the pirate broadcasting stations. The Bill for this purpose will, I hope, complete its passage through Parliament tomorrow.

Mr. McNamara: As this programme was giving active encouragement to the Smith régime in Southern Rhodesia, is there no way in which my right hon. Friend can prosecute those who either supplied the funds or participated in the programmes?

Mr. Short: I have no idea whether funds have been made available to York University Conservative Club, which, I understand, supported these programmes. As far as the broadcasts are concerned, I think that it is a matter for the good


sense of hon. Members. However, I hope that the whole thing will end very shortly.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Is not the best way to kill the pirates to substitute a robust form of local broadcasting, which we do not look like getting under this Government? Will the right hon. Gentleman give some attention to this?

Mr. Short: We are starting Radio 247 on 30th September. It will be a robust music service.[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Perhaps hon. Members would wait until they hear it before they pass judgment. We are also starting local broadcasting stations in nine towns and cities throughout the country.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Fairground, Bristol (Child's Death)

Mr. Ellis: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable concerning circumstances surrounding the death of a child at Bristol on Saturday, 17th June, in a fairground accident.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Alice Bacon): I understand that the adjourned inquest will take place on 14th July and until then I can make no comment on the accident itself. But I should like to express my deep sympathy with the parents.

Mr. Ellis: When calling for a report from the chief constable, will my right hon. Friend stress what aspect there might be with regard to local byelaws which may be operative in this case?

Miss Bacon: Yes, Sir. Local byelaws are in operation in Bristol requiring certain safety standards. But the enforcement is the responsibility of the local authority. The Showmen's Guild of Great Britain also operates a voluntary scheme.

Fairground Equipment (Public Safety)

Mr. Ellis: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he takes to ensure the safety of public citizens in respect of fairground equipment.

Miss Bacon: Apart from any provisions in local Acts, local authorities

have power under Section 75 of the Public Health Act, 1961, to make bye-laws for securing the safety of the public at fairgrounds. Model byelaws compiled by the Home Office are available for use by local authorities. From his experience as confirming authority my right hon. Friend has no reason to suppose that the powers, or the enforcement arrangements made by local authorities, are inadequate.

Mr. Ellis: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that there is a gap in legislation regarding the adequate inspection of fairground equipment? Is there not need for further legislation on this matter? Might this not be made the responsibility of the Ministry of Labour, since it has an inspectorate already at hand which could do the job?

Miss Bacon: As I explained in my Answer to Question No. 48, enforcement is the responsibility of the local authorities. I gather my hon. Friend is now asking that it should be the responsibility of a Government Department. That is a new idea. Up to now the enforcement by local authorities has worked quite well.

Mr. Hogg: Since some of the equipment is peripatetic, is there not a case for standardisation throughout the country?

Miss Bacon: As I have explained, we have model byelaws for the use of local authorities and the Showmen's Guild has itself since 1966 issued certificates to various equipment in fairgrounds. But if there is any gap, I am ready to consider it. This was a very sad accident but I am pleased that there are so few such accidents.

Stage Censorship (Select Committee's Recommendations)

Mr. Archer: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to give effect to the recommendations of the Select Committee on Stage Censorship.

Miss Bacon: My right hon. Friend is considering this valuable Report, but he is not yet in a position to announce the Government's intentions.

Mr. Archer: Without asking my right hon. Friend to commit herself in advance on the merits, may I ask whether she does not agree that the present system


serves merely to protect institutions, some of which do not require it while others do not deserve it?

Miss Bacon: There are various points of view about this and I ask my hon. Friend to wait until my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has studied the whole matter and, if possible, has come forward with recommendations.

Mr. Strauss: Will my right hon. Friend ask the Home Secretary to bear in mind that this was a unanimous report from a Committee representing people of all parties in both Houses?

Miss Bacon: Yes, Sir. I will certainly draw my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's attention to that but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) knows, our right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has a particular interest in this matter, so I am sure that he will have noted this aspect already.

PAYMASTER-GENERAL (ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS)

Mr. Marten: asked the Prime Minister whether he has yet decided to extend the responsibility of the Paymaster-General for answering Questions in the House.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): No such decision is at present contemplated, Sir.

Mr. Marten: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is a very surprising Answer? Is he further aware that the Paymaster-General is now playing no part in the Parliamentary life of this House?[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to hear the rest of the supplementary question.

Mr. Marten: Without jogging backwards, can the Prime Minister say what on earth the Paymaster-General is doing which could not be done by a party official?

The Prime Minister: It is perhaps fortunate for the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) that my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General does not deal with his Questions. I sometimes

wish that I could hand them over to him. It is the traditional practice that the duties assigned to non-Departmental Ministers are not normally announced. Unlike certain non-Departmental Ministers up to October, 1964, my right hon. Friend is not engaged in party duties, as the hon. Gentleman seems to suggest.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Since the exploration of the mud on the ocean floor was looking for a responsible Minister last week, does not the Prime Minister think that the Paymaster-General might take it on?

The Prime Minister: The question of seabed technology, on which we had an interesting exchange last week, is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology, as I made plain.

Mr. Bellenger: Has my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General any specific duties involving security matters?

The Prime Minister: I have pointed out that it is not customary to indicate the duties assigned to non-Departmental Ministers. The responsibility for security, apart from my own overriding responsibility and the specialised responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, is, in each Department, for the Departmental Minister concerned.

GREECE (NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANISATION)

Mr. Winnick: asked the Prime Minister what consultations he has had with the Prime Ministers of other North Atlantic Treaty Organisation countries over the rôle to be played in future by Greece in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

The Prime Minister: None, Sir.

Mr. Winnick: Since N.A.T.O. was intended apparently for democratic countries, is there to be any change over the membership of Greece? Following yesterday's meeting of the National Executive of the Labour Party, will my right hon. Friend consider raising his voice loudly and clearly about the conditions of political detainees in Greece, many of whom are being served brutally by the riff-raff who rule Greece at the moment?

The Prime Minister: As far as the Alliance is concerned, I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said about the widespread concern throughout the Alliance at recent events in Greece. The position of Her Majesty's Government in pressing for a return to democratic methods in accordance with the Greek Government's promise is already well known. My right hon. Friend has already taken action about British detainees, as my hon. Friend knows.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Has the Prime Minister noticed the advice given yesterday that moral judgments on foreign Governments are a luxury that this country cannot afford? Will he pass that advice on to some of his hon. Friends?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that it is customary in this House to discuss statements made by Royal personages.

CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (SPEECH)

Mr. Higgins: asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at Leicester on economic prospects on Saturday, 3rd June, represents Government policy.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Higgins: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that, during the next 12 months, there will be a gentle but progressive improvement in the standard of living of every family? Can the Prime Minister tell us how this is to occur in the case of old-age non-pensioners who are not in receipt of the National Insurance pension and are excluded from having the Social Security supplementary benefits?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was referring to the impact on all families of the growth rate he was discussing in his speech. There will be opportunity to debate the position of all old people, whether covered by pension or not, on the new Bill to increase the pensions, which represents the second major increase in pensions under this Government.

Mr. Heath: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Chancellor's speech, which was buoyant and optimistic and was loudly heralded at the time as a "Sunny Jim" performance only two weeks ago, is in complete contrast with Treasury forecasts today in Economic ", which is heralded by The Times as the Treasury's grim view of the economic situation? Is not this conflict in public between Treasury Ministers and Treasury officials just one more example of the conflict which has led to so many economic crises during this Government's life?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I do not think that either my right hon. Friend or I are responsible for the newspaper treatment of the speech or of the Treasury publication "Economic Trends". My right hon. Friend's speech, if it was buoyant—and I have read it as carefully as the right hon. Gentleman—was buoyant about the fact that the nation is at last paying its way. I would have thought that the right hon. Gentleman on one occasion might be big enough to acknowledge this. The rest of the buoyancy referred to in these Press reports related to what he said about the growth rate and further action to be taken if there was any slippage in the growth rate.

Mr. Heath: Am I to take it that the Prime Minister is repudiating the article in this document with its introduction prepared by Her Majesty's Treasury, a document which says that exports are stationary and imports are rising and the trend of unemployment is steadily upwards?

The Prime Minister: I am not repudiating it in the slightest. Since the question related to my right hon. Friend's speech, what he said was that if our policies are under-shooting the growth rate we shall adjust them so that they will produce a 3 per cent. rate of growth. He went on to say,
What I emphasise again is that it is consistent for us to have a growth rate of 3 per cent., and a balance of payments surplus.
The right hon. Gentleman, who left us with a £800 million deficit, ought to be the first, not the last, to acknowledge what it meant—how tough the measures had to be to put it right and our success in doing it, and he has not done so.

Mr. Heath: rose—

Mr. Leadbitter: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it right and proper in this House that back benchers during this important Question Time to the Prime Minister are to be denied the right to put a question to him because the Leader of the Opposition is constantly doing so?

Mr. Speaker: I sympathise with that point of order, but by raising it at length the hon. Member is depriving someone, possibly himself, of the opportunity to ask a question.

Mr. Heath: Will the Prime Minister kindly tell the House whether the Chancellor is right or the Treasury officials are right?

The Prime Minister: Obviously both are right. The Treasury document for which my right hon. Friend bears responsibility lists some of the difficulties, including the growth rate, which have arisen in the course of putting the balance of payments right. My right hon. Friend was right to take the opportunity of the fact that we are in surplus—and in his three interruptions the right hon. Gentleman still has not been generous enough to accept this—to say what the prospects now were for the next year.
On the question of incompatibility, the right hon. Gentleman will remember a Prime Minister who said that the economy had seldom, if ever, been so strong—when we had an £800 million deficit.

Mr. Shinwell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that every time I listen to the Leader of the Opposition I come to the only possible conclusion—that the Government are doing all right.

SHIPPING (SUEZ CANAL AND GULF OF AQABA)

Sir Richard Glyn: asked the Prime Minister to what extent it is still the Government's policy to assert the right of all British shipping to use the Straits of Tiran as an international waterway; and whether the same policy applies to the Suez Canal.

Viscount Lambton: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement outlining Her Majesty's Government's present policy towards the free-

dom of passage through the Suez Canal and the Straits of Tiran.

The Prime Minister: Her Majesty's Government continue to affirm the rights of passage of shipping of all States in both the Suez Canal and the Gulf of Aqaba.

Sir Richard Glyn: Will the Prime Minister say what plan he had to enforce these unquestioned rights which he announced as Britain's policy, as reported in the Press on 25th May, and can this same plan which he had in mind then be extended to apply to our right over the Suez Canal now?

The Prime Minister: The statement made on 24th May referred to a very dangerous situation which, it seemed to most of us in the House when we debated it, might lead to war in the Middle East. We said that it was important to assert freedom of passage through the Straits of Tiran as a way of avoiding that war. It was not avoided and it must obviously be one of the questions in the settlement.
With regard to the Suez Canal, I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend said two days ago. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that the closure of the Canal, which we all deeply deplore, particularly the sinking of the ships in the Canal, is a matter which is awaiting some easement from the United Nations discussions. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be the first to agree that Britain cannot shoot her way to open up the Canal. The last time this was tried it closed it for six months.

Viscount Lambton: Would not the Prime Minister agree that the war broke out because the Prime Minister, having originally said that he would assert the freedom of the Canal—[Interruption.]freedom of the Gulf of Aqaba, then did nothing and made Israel go it alone?

The Prime Minister: This is completely wrong. It is a tremendous flight of fancy to suggest that the fighting began in the Middle East because of any action taken or not taken by Her Majesty's Government or by me personally. As the hon. Gentleman will know, we were in the process of discussing with the United States Government and with other Governments what could be done by the maritime Powers to assert the freedom of the Straits of Tiran. Both the United


States Government and we ourselves urged the utmost restraint on all the parties in the Middle East until matters of this kind could be decided peacefully. Unfortunately, the fighting broke out.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Would Her Majesty's Government be prepared to guarantee the right of freedom through the Canal and the Straits of Tiran in concert with other Powers in the future?

The Prime Minister: This must be a matter for the ultimate peace settlement. I think practically everyone who has spoken on this matter has made it clear that the right of free passage through the Straits of Tiran must be part of an international settlement. It was understood that it was on the last occasion in 1957, and certain assurances were given to Israel at the time. All the maritime nations, without exception, fully endorsed freedom of passage through the Straits of Tiran; but, as we know, Sharm el Sheik was occupied and the matter was reopened. Everyone must agree that this must be settled as part of a peace settlement.

Lord Balniel: Would the Prime Minister take very seriously our suggestion last night that the Island of Perim, which dominates the other entrance to the Red Sea, should be placed under international trusteeship when we relinquish sovereignty, because is there not a real danger that the freedom of access to the Red Sea, which has been maintained for a hundred years by the British Government, could cease and that, in particular, Israeli shipping could be excluded from the Red Sea altogether?

The Prime Minister: As the noble Lord knows, my right hon. Friend, in winding up the debate on that part of the Bill, endorsed the noble Lord's proposal and said that we would do everything in our power to get it under international supervision.

RHODESIA

Sir J. Langford-Holt: asked the Prime Minister what indication he has had during his consultations with Mr. Smith as to the date on which universal adult franchise will be introduced in Rhodesia.

The Prime Minister: My last discussions with Mr. Smith were on H.M.S. "Tiger" last December. Neither then nor before was any contemplated date intimated.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in another place the Lord Chancellor indicated that—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading"]—I am entitled to do so; this is a statement of policy—that Her Majesty's Government had never looked for immediate majority rule and that the Government had always said—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must not quote on a supplementary question.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: He said that the Government had always taken the view that Africans were not ready for self-government. Would the Prime Minister explain the apparent contradiction between that and the Government's policy of N.I.B.M.A.R.?

The Prime Minister: I have made it clear on a very large number of occasions, to Mr. Smith when I was in Salisbury, in my public statements in Salisbury, and in the House afterwards on very many occasions, that there would be a considerable period before majority rule in Rhodesia was a serious possibility, or should be contemplated. That was the whole basis of what we said on those occasions. That was still our view when we discussed it on H.M.S. "Tiger" with Mr. Smith. We had some discussions about whether particular constitutional proposals would be likely after two or three elections, or whatever it was, to lead to majority rule, but, of course, no date was set in our discussions. There is nothing incompatible between what was said on that occasion and our declaration about N.I.B.M.A.R.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Question Time is over.

ANGLO-FRENCH VARIABLE GEOMETRY AIRCRAFT

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

MR. EDELMAN: To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he had with President de Gaulle during his recent


meeting on Anglo-French co-operation in the aircraft industry.

Mr. Edelman: On a point of order. In view of the very serious reports from France that the A.F.V.G. project may be cancelled, and the catastrophic effect which that would have on the employment situation in the aircraft industry, will the Prime Minister consider answering Question No. Q7?

Mr. Speaker: That is for the Prime Minister. I have had no request from the right hon. Gentleman to answer that.

The Prime Minister: If it is the desire of the House, I will seek permission to answer that Question.
The Answer which I intended to give was, "I have nothing to add to the Answers I gave to Questions on 20th June".
In view of the concern which has been expressed, I ought to add that, as the House may know, my right hon. Friend is discussing these matters with M. Messmer this afternoon. I know that he will take an early opportunity of informing the House of the conclusions of those discussions. I believe that there are Questions to him about the subject next week.

Mr. Edelman: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and I hope that the discussions between my right hon. Friend and M. Messmer will reach a successful conclusion. In the event of the cancellation of this all-important project, have the Government any contingency plans for the aircraft industry?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend should await the completion of the talks between my right hon. Friend and M. Messmer. Any situation which may or may not arise from those talks can then be more fully considered.

Mr. Leadbitter: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member can raise his point of order in a moment.

Mr. Onslow: As the Secretary of State for Defence will no doubt be under great pressure from the Press this evening about the result of these talks, can the Prime Minister say whether we can expect a statement in the House from the right hon. Gentleman tomorrow?

The Prime Minister: I will bring my right hon. Friend's attention to the hon. Gentleman's question. I said that there were Questions on this subject to my right hon. Friend next week, and I thought that that might have been an convenient time; but I will inform my right hon. Friend of what has been said.

Mr. Lubbock: If this project was to be jointly financed by ourselves and the French, would it not have been better if we had not decided to spend £336 million on an American plane?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. That does not arise in any sense, because there are certain financial difficulties on the French side because of their economic position. It is about that that my right hon. Friend is now talking to M. Messmer.

Mr. Heath: While we are awaiting the statement by the Secretary of State for Defence, will the Prime Minister confirm that, both operationally and industrially, this aircraft still remains the core of our long-term defence programme?

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to what has been said on this subject in previous Defence Reviews and defence debates. This, of course, is a joint venture between ourselves and the French and it requires two parties to continue with it. We shall have to see what is the outcome of the talks between my right hon. Friend and M. Messmer.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Leadbitter: On a point of order. Many hon. Members are anxious about the 15 minutes of Questions to the Prime Minister. So far as we have been able to understand it, the custom of the House is that a back bench Member is allowed one supplementary question, whereas we are generally agreed that the Leader of the Opposition may have two.

Mr. Winnick: None.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Leadbitter: Having regard to the possible importance of those supplementary questions, we are, nevertheless, anxious to have some protection. In what manner can the Leader of the Opposition be controlled as to the number of supplementary questions which he puts to my right hon. Friend?

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: On a point of order.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am being addressed on a point of order. Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Bromley-Davenport.

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: Is it not a fact that when the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister was Leader of the Opposition and Mr. Harold Macmillan was Prime Minister, during Questions to the then Prime Minister the right hon. Gentleman was up and down from his seat the whole time like a yo-yo?

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have had enough of arguments and eloquence and metaphor to deal with the point of order now.
This is a difficult matter. The privilege of putting Questions to the Prime Minister during the quarter of an hour between a quarter-past three and half-past three is very precious to hon. Members. On the other hand, one has to balance that against the right of the Leader of the Opposition to seize on one of the Questions to the Prime Minister to wage on behalf of the Opposition what he regards as an important battle. It is not for the Speaker to impose a ration of one supplementary question, or two, on the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. William Hamilton: Three.

Mr. Speaker: It is a matter for self-discipline for hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House. I can understand the anxieties of hon. Members about the issue which has been raised in this point of order. Indeed, if I may go a little further, I understand the disappointment of any hon. Member who never gets to put his supplementary question; I experienced it for 16 years.

The Prime Minister: Further to that point of order. I understand the feelings of my hon. Friends, but is it not a material point that, by tradition, the Leader of the Opposition does not himself put Questions on the Order Paper, so that some degree of latitude is always allowed to the Leader of the Opposition to put rather more supplementary questions than would follow from putting a Question on the Order Paper?

Mr. Speaker: The last thing about which Mr. Speaker would complain is Christian magnanimity. I am not concerned so much about the latitude afforded to the Front Benches as with the longitude which they take from time to time.

Mr. Molloy: On a point of order. Question No. 08 on the Order Paper today has very serious constitutional implications for every hon. Member. It asserts that any Government of this country can negotiate for reasons which would divide citizens into Welsh, Scots, Irish or coloured. Ought not the Prime Minister—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is not addressing me on a point of order. He does not like a Ouestion. but that is not a point of order.

NOTICES OF MOTION

Dr. Winstanley: On a point of order. It is frequently necessary for you, Mr. Speaker, to remind hon. Members during business questions that in seeking time for a Motion to be debated it is not permitted to refer to the merits of a Motion. When I raised such a matter at business question time last week, on a Motion signed by hon. Members of all parties, the Leader of the House concluded his reply by saying:
I … think that the Motion is unworthy of debate."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd June 1967 Vol. 748, c. 1965.]
My point of order, which I raise so that I may be guided in case this matter arises again, is the extent to which the Leader of the House is exempted from the provisions of a rule which is applied to all other hon. Members.

Mr. Speaker: Again, I have very much sympathy with the hon. Member. In reply to the first part of his point of order, it would be wrong if business question time became a time for debating the merits of the various subjects which hon. Members wish to bring before the House. I must be firm on that. I cannot be responsible for the way in which a Minister answers a question even if the Minister is Leader of the House.
Mr. Heath. Business question.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Heath: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business of the House for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Crossman): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 3RD JULY—In the morning—
Remaining stages of the Advertisements (Hire Purchase) Bill [Lords] and of the Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill [Lords], which are consolidation Measures.
Lords Amendments to the Uniform Laws on International Sales Bill.
Remaining stages of the Public Records Bill [Lords].
In the afternoon—
Private Members' Motions until seven o'clock, followed by the Second Reading of the National Insurance (No. 2) Bill.
Afterwards, the Government propose to facilitate further consideration of the Sexual Offences (No. 2) Bill.
TUESDAY, 4TH JULY—Remaining stages of the Countryside (Scotland) Bill and of the Post Office (Data Processing Service) Bill.
Motion on the Rating and Valuation (Scotland) Amendment Order.
WEDNESDAY, 5TH JULY—In the morning—
Second Reading of the Greenwich Hospital Bill.
Remaining stages of the Matrimonial Causes Bill [Lords].
In the afternoon—
Supply [23rd Allotted Day]:
Debate on Industry and Employment in Scotland, which will arise on an Opposition Motion.
Opposition Prayer on the Prices and Incomes Order relating to Harland and Wolff Limited.
THURSDAY, 6TH JULY—Supply [24th Allotted Day]:
Debate on the Middle East, on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Motion on the House of Commons Members' Fund. Remaining stages of the Bermuda Constitution Bill.
FRIDAY, 7TH JULY—Remaining stages of the National Insurance (No. 2) Bill.
MONDAY, 10TH JULY—The proposed business will be:
In the morning—
Prayers relating to the Training of Teachers Regulations and the Factories Carcinogenic Substances Order.
In the afternoon—
Supply [25th Allotted Day]:
Debate on a topic to be announced later.

Mr. Heath: Can the Leader of the House confirm that it is still the Government's intention to publish the mid-year defence White Paper? If so, is he aware that the House would, I am sure, want to debate it before we rise for the Recess? In that event, can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that we shall have time for a debate and that the White Paper will be published in time to be given full consideration before the debate?

Mr. Crossman: I hope to make a statement in next week's business statement about the Government's intention concerning the White Paper. I give the assurance straight away that if there is a White Paper we will give adequate time between its publication and the day of debate.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that there will be an early debate on the White Paper on Town and Country Planning, which has just been published?

Mr. Crossman: I think that the White Paper has only just been published. We had better study it. My hon. Friend will be optimistic if he thinks that we will get a debate on it before the Recess.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Will the Leader 'of the House give consideration to completion of the Prime Minister's speech last week on the D Notice question? As the right hon. Gentleman will recall, his right hon. Friend said that had there been more time he would have liked to expand on the future of the D Notice system. Perhaps that part of the Prime Minister's speech could either be laid in the Library or the Prime Minister could make a statement next week.

Mr. Crossman: As to the suggestion, which, I think, the right hon. Gentleman is making, of a further debate on D Notices, I gather that discussions are now going on between my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal Party. We should await the end of those discussions before we decide what next to do in the House about the matter.

Dr. David Kerr: Will my right hon. Friend accept that many hon. Members, on both sides, are grateful for the opportunity to make further progress on the Sexual Offences (No. 2) Bill? Can my right hon. Friend say at what time it is expected that the debate on Monday might begin?

Mr. Crossman: As I have told the House, on Monday we are having the Second Reading of the National Insurance (No. 2) Bill. The debate will come after that.

Sir C. Osborne: May I ask the Leader of the House to reconsider his decision to force this so-called Private Member's Bill on homosexuality through the House on Monday night, in view of two things: first, that the servants of the House have reached a point where they are breaking down, and secondly, when morning sittings were instituted, the Leader of the House promised that we should not have night sittings if we accepted morning sittings? Will not the right hon. Gentleman honour that promise?

Mr. Crossman: The hon. Member has put two reasons for our not considering the Bill further late on Monday. I do not think that the reasons are valid. This is, I think, another Bill on which it is proper to enable the House to come to a decision one way or the other. That is the position that the Government are adopting.
As for the hon. Member's remarks about the servants of the House and the doorkeepers, I share to the full his anxiety about them. In the Services Committee we are actively engaged in doing the only possible long-term job, which is the recruiting of more staff.
We shall, however, have to take drastic measures, and I had better now tell the House that we will have tonight to close the Special Galleries. The Serjeant at

Arms has asked me to say this as a matter of urgency because of the great strain on the doorkeepers. He has asked me to consider this matter. I have considered it and have come to the conclusion that it is not fair on the doorkeepers to impose unnecessarily long hours. I shall ask the House to accept the need for closing the side galleries—

Sir C. Osborne: Close the House altogether.

Mr. Crossman: I am seeking to answer the hon. Member's question. That will enable us to have the whole of the Strangers' Gallery open. I regret doing this, but I am glad that the hon. Member has mentioned the matter, because I have very much in mind the strain which all-night sittings at the end of a long Session imposes on our staff.

Mr. Hector Hughes: As to Monday's business, is it not a perversion to give time to the Sexual Offences (No. 2) Bill while denying time to my Motion to restore to returning seamen the rail voucher facilities which they formerly enjoyed?

[That this House is of opinion that for social, family, economic and other reasons the withdrawal by British Railways of the cheap fare railway vouchers hitherto available to seamen and their families is wrong as it frustrates family reunions, deprives British Railways of fares, diminishes British Railways income and now calls upon Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Transport, by legislation or otherwise, to restore to British seamen and their families the relevant facilities which they have hitherto enjoyed.]

Mr. Crossman: I appreciate my hon. and learned Friend's pertinacity in promoting the cause of his Motion. I would like to feel that I could give him assurances that we could debate it, but I say in all seriousness that the business which we will be discussing next Monday night is business on which the House should now come to a decision.

Mr. Turton: As the Prime Minister last week said there was an urgent need to debate the Reports of Mr. Speaker's Conference on Electoral Law, when will the Leader of the House afford time to do so?

Mr. Crossman: If I remember aright, in the exchanges with the Prime Minister my right hon. Friend pointed out that each of the decisions had been taken seriatim and we thought that the wisest thing was to await the full list of decisions. I think that there is still one to come. The time for debate will come when we have received and considered them as a whole, but I can give no kind of promise that we are likely to do it before the Recess.

Mr. Houghton: Has my right hon. Friend seen the reports and the evidence of organised obstruction which is to be used against the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Bill after ten o'clock tonight? Is he aware that this is a deliberate attempt to prevent the House from reaching a conclusion on the Bill, and will he bear these tactics in mind in considering whether further time must be given later to the Bill?

Mr. Crossman: My attention was drawn to what purported to be a copy of a letter from an hon. Member to other hon. Members which seemed to indicate certain tactics which, it was suggested, would be employed. It is my job not to take sides in this matter. All that I would say to my right hon. Friend is that whether we give more time is a question which we will not consider until after the debate has taken place. Certainly, in considering it, one factor is bound to be whether time is well used or abused.

Sir A. V. Harvey: To enable the House to arrive at a decision on a Private Member's Bill, why does the right hon. Gentleman insist on an all-night sitting? It has been freely intimated that the House may rise on 28th July. Why cannot these matters be discussed in the light of day. Are the Government trying to put the shutters up and get Parliament out of the way because they are doing so badly?

Mr. Crossman: This is a point of which we can discuss the merits. I think that there are certain times when the House has the right to lengthy sittings, which is when emotions are passionately engaged and Members feel desperately that they want to prolong the debate.
My impression is that on this Bill there are matters of principle and passion aris-

ing among Members on both sides, in respect of which I would expect a lengthy debate. If we have a lengthy debate I think that the right thing is to have it at the time I have allotted. It does not seem any more likely that people will abuse procedure at night. I believe that they will debate the matter fairly and honestly together[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I hope they will. I think it right, in the case of a Private Members' Bill to which Government time is given, and when it is the wish of those concerned with the Bill, that we should give it time late at night.

Mr. Winnick: After some of the humbug expressed by hon. Members opposite, is the Leader of the House aware—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Grow up.

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not out of order to accuse one side of the House of humbug. It may be discourteous.

Mr. Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is great and genuine sympathy among hon. Members on this side of the House for the doorkeepers, who seem to be underpaid and overworked? May we know next week whether there will be a settlement of this dispute? Will my right hon. Friend be making a statement?

Mr. Crossman: I do not know what my hon. Friend means by talking about a dispute. There is no kind of dispute. There is a decision. The Serjeant at Arms and I discussed this matter. It is a matter of urgency because we have been facing the prospect of one or two late sittings at the end of a tiring Session when we both felt it necessary to make some concessions, even to the extent of curtailing space in the public galleries. I regret this curtailment, which we are doing in the short run, but the only solution is the recruitment of more people next Session, so as to have the House adequately manned.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile the new sense of proportion in providing only half a day for the Government's National Insurance Bill with providing virtually unlimited Government time for two so-called Private Members' Bills? In view of what the right hon. Gentleman said about not taking sides, is it not taking sides to


adopt the expedient normally adopted for highly controversial Government Measures, by providing an unlimited suspension?

Mr. Crossman: I would not think that the decision that the Government took to provide this time was taking sides. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman accuses me of it. In this case I have sought as far as possible to treat these issues of Private Members' Bills as a House of Commons matter, and to ask whether it is not proper from time to time to enable the House to come to a decision and not to spend its time on Bills which are dropped half-way through. This has been my concern.
I shall certainly consider, through the usual channels, whether the time for the National Insurance Bill is too short—but no kind of suggestion was put forward last week that anybody thought that it was too short, and I would be surprised if that argument were maintained.

Mr. Milne: Will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of an early debate on industry and employment in the development districts in England and Wales, if not next week, certainly before the Summer Recess, in view of the urgency of the situation?

Mr. Crossman: I will bear that point in mind, but I would remind my hon. Friend that the amount of Government time is severely limited. When I remember that we are to have a debate on defence and another on foreign affairs I realise that the number of general debates will have to be limited, in view of the short time available before the Recess.

Sir D. Renton: Will the right hon. Gentleman state the principles which inspired the Government in deciding which Private Members' Bills should be given time so that the House could come to a decision?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have already ruled on this subject. We cannot discuss the criteria at business question time. The right hon. and learned Gentleman can ask for another Private Member's Bill to be included. That is the purpose of business questions.

Mr. Hamling: In view of what my right hon. Friend said about tonight's closing of the Special Galleries, what steps is he taking to improve the conditions of the servants of the House?

Mr. Crossman: This is a matter which the Services Committee has been engaged on for some weeks. I am asking my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to discuss it with the members of that Committee because I regard this as a matter of considerable importance to the dignity and efficient functioning of the House.

Mr. Nott: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it reasonable to debate important matters of social legislation, such as the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Bill, on a Thursday night, with very little notice, when hon. Members want to attend the debate but are prevented from doing so due to long-standing engagements in their constituencies? Will he undertake that in future these items of social legislation will be taken during mid-week so that Members who wish to do so may participate?

Mr. Crossman: I think that the notice given was the normal notice, which is given week by week. There is no difference here from any other part of our business. I gave the assurance last week that I was prepared to consider very carefully the convenience of hon. Members—private Members, in particular—in respect of these Bills. This is why, in the case of the Sexual Offences Bill, after hearing what happened last time, we had it on a Monday and not a Thursday, I believe to the greater convenience of hon. Members.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Can my right hon. Friend add anything to what he told me last week about a debate on the report that we can expect to receive on the deliberations of the Specialist Committee on Agriculture? Has he made any progress towards an amicable settlement of the question of facilities for that Committee?

Mr. Crossman: I do not know of any report. There is no normal procedure for the report of a Specialist Committee to be discussed before we have had it. The Specialist Committee in due course will write its report and deliver it to the House.


As for the question of the talks that I have been having with the Committee, it would be a breach of privilege if I discussed them.

Sir J. Eden: Since the handling of business by the right hon. Gentleman has laid an unprecedented strain upon the servants of the House and rendered it virtually impossible for hon. Members adequately to scrutinise legislation, will the right hon. Gentleman provide time next week, or soon thereafter, for a debate?

Mr. Crossman: A debate on what?

Sir J. Eden: On the right hon. Gentleman's incompetence.

Mr. Crossman: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that he has ways and means of forcing a debate of that kind.

Mr. Shinwell: On the question asked by my hon. Friend relating to Specialist Committees, I agree with my right hon. Friend that it would be improper to discuss the activities of the Committee before its report has been received, but may we have an assurance that these Specialist Committees which have been recently created, and are quite an innovation, are independent and that they have the right to determine their own functions and activities without any interference or restriction on the part of the Government?

Mr. Crossman: I can give my right hon. Friend that assurance, and in the case of the Committee on Agriculture I would have thought that it had provided plenty of evidence of that.

Mr. Braine: Does the Leader of the House recall that last week he described the Motion which drew attention to the Government's failure to employ the 3 per cent. quota of disabled workers as unworthy of debate?

[That this House notes with regret the failure of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to reveal to the House in answer to a Parliamentary Question on 13th June the fact that the percentage of registered disabled persons employed by Government departments has now fallen below the standard three per cent. prescribed by the Minister of Labour, and deplores the Government's failure to take effective steps to remedy the position.]

In view of the fact that the Government, of all people, are supposed to set an example to private industry in this matter, will the right hon. Gentleman make amends for his remark and provide time to debate this important subject?

Mr. Crossman: I do not think that I can provide time, but I appreciate what the hon. Member on the Liberal benches said. The description of the Motion by the Leader of the House was unworthy of the Leader of the House and I withdraw it.

Mr. Coe: Will my right hon. Friend look again at the answer he gave to the request for a debate on the conclusions of the Speaker's Conference on Electoral Law which have already been decided? Will he consider those conclusions which have already been given, which are sufficient for a very useful debate?

Mr. Crossman: I would prefer to stand by what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, namely, that the Government would definitely prefer to see the recommendations as a whole before deciding what view to take of them.

Mr. Godber: Now that the Wise Committee has published its final Report, and bearing in mind the length of time which this has taken, would the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that we will he able to debate the Report before the Summer Recess?

Mr. Crossman: I am sincere when I say that I wish that I could, but I cannot.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he has, from time to time, told the House that he hopes to find time for a debate on the Employment Agencies Bill? Is he also aware that, week after week, he does not say when it will be? Is he also aware that I listened with anxiety today but still did not hear the time? Finally, is he aware—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman can ask for time more briefly than that, I think.

Mr. Jenkins: May I put my final sentence, Mr. Speaker? Is my right hon. Friend aware that if he does not hurry up we will have no time at all?

Mr. Crossman: I would suggest that a quiet talk behind the Chair might be a more effective way of getting time.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that hon. Members will remember that there is a good deal of business before us. Sir Spencer Summers.

Sir S. Summers: Having regard to the fact that morning sittings were partially justified on the flimsy pretext that late-night sittings would thereby be rendered unnecessary, is it not disgraceful that two all-night sittings should be made inevitable by the right hon. Gentleman's timetable?

Mr. Crossman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to answer that point. I gave the assurance that, in my view, we should be able, through morning sittings, to stop Government business early on Thursdays, and this we have successfully done. Now comes the question, when should we fit in the long contentious debates on a Private Member's Bill? On two occasions we have put it on evenings of the week. This is not Government time. We are stopping our Government time when we should, and if private Members want, as I believe they do, to have much more time for these Bills, I suggest that those hon. Members who care passionately will care passionately enough to stay up all night.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Jopling.

Mr. Peyton: Will the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I called Mr. Jopling.

Mr. Jopling: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider allowing time for a debate on whether a review of Parliamentary privilege is necessary, in view of recent examples of the way in which people outside the House can have their lives and reputations shattered by innuendo in this place?

Mr. Crossman: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman need ask for a debate on the subject; a Committee is already discussing it.

Mr. Jennings: In view of the serious plight of public service and Armed Forces pensioners, would the right hon. Gentleman give time for a short debate, perhaps during one of the morning sittings, to

allow the Government to make a definite statement on this subject?

Mr. Crossman: I am certainly prepared to consider that possibility through the usual channels.

Mr. Peyton: Would the right hon. Gentleman explain what he meant when he told my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) that there were means of securing a debate upon his own handling of the business of the House? There is already a Motion on the Order Paper in my name severely critical of his handling of business, and I hope that we may have time to discuss it.

[That this House deplores the arrangement of business by the Leader of the House of Commons whereby debates on the Aden, Perim and Kuria Muria Islands Bill, relating to the granting of independence to these territories in complex and difficult circumstances, and the Gas (Borrowing Powers) Order 1967, giving a nationalised industry power to borrow an additional £300 million, had to take place after 10 p.m.; considers that this arrangement effectively prevented the careful and detailed consideration which such measures warranted; and calls upon the Leader of the House to abandon further gimmickry and worthless plans of Parliamentary reform and concentrate his efforts on ensuring that an opportunity is provided for the effective and careful scrutiny of legislation and expenditure.]

Mr. Crossman: Certainly. It is one of several hundred Motions which we have which I will weigh carefully on their merits and importance.

Mr. Michael Shaw: When will the Report stage of the Companies Bill come forward? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we understand that there are many Government Amendments to the Bill and that it is only right, in our view, that the back benchers and outside interests should have plenty of time to consider them before they are debated on Report?

Mr. Crossman: I appreciate that this is extremely important. I think that I may be able to make a statement next week, but I am not quite sure.

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: In view of the widespread concern at reports from Aden that British troops are being restricted in the weapons which they use in action, will the right hon. Gentleman consult his right hon Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and arrange for an early statement on this subject?

Mr. Crossman: I will certainly communicate the hon. and gallant Gentleman's anxieties. Of course, the issue can be discussed in the debate on the Middle East next Thursday.

PETROL PRICES (SURCHARGE)

The Minister of Power (Mr. Richard Marsh): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement.
Temporarily, the cost of oil supplies to the United Kingdom, as for other Western European countries, has increased substantially as a result principally of the lengthening of tanker routes and higher tanker freight rates. These costs have to be met in order to maintain our supplies. They represent broadly an average of £2 a ton.
The oil companies have consulted me in detail about the position and have sought my advice on how to handle the increased costs. The Government have accepted that a temporary surcharge of 2d. a gallon on the prices of all petroleum products would be reasonable to meet the cost of the present supply difficulties.
Petrol prices were reduced recently and the surcharge returns them roughly to their previous level. It should be clearly understood that these surcharges are justified only by the present difficulties and that the whole situation will be kept under close review.

Sir K. Joseph: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the reduction of petrol prices to which he referred was due to the operation of a free market? Secondly, what is the Government's view of the effects of these rising costs on the balance of payments? Thirdly, do the Government expect that rationing may have to be considered.

Hon. Members: What about Suez?

Mr. Marsh: Suez would involve a longer answer.
Governmental calculations have clearly taken place of the effect on the balance of payments, but I should want notice of that question. Rationing is certainly very much under consideration. I work on the assumption that it is easier not to use rationing if one finds that it is not necessary, than to find at the very last moment that one is unprepared and then have to use it. I see no prospect of rationing in the immediate future, but preparations are being made so that, at some time in the future that we cannot see, we shall be able to deal with it.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: As my right hon. Friend said that this is only temporary and as all the petrol companies have been showing vast profits for years, surely it is not too much to ask them to meet this extra charge temporarily out of their profits and pro tanto to reduce those profits for a little while, since the Government have said that when costs go up temporarily, they should be absorbed by the companies?

Mr. Marsh: The position is a trifle more complicated than that. Freight rates, for example, vary very widely, but they are, at the moment, broadly three times as high as they were before the Middle East crisis. I accept my hon. Friend's concern, but we are not dependent for our oil supplies solely on British companies. Many people in the world want to buy petrol, and in those circumstances one has to pay a price for it.

Mr. Lubbock: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether he considered, in conjunction with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the use of the regulator, so that this increase need not have been passed on to the consumer? Will any steps be taken to exempt the operators of public service vehicles, either under the Bus Fuel Grants Act, or by some other means?

Mr. Marsh: I do not see how the regulator would meet this problem. Clearly, this will involve increases in costs for industry and transport, but the difficulty is that there is no alternative.

Mr. Mendelson: With reference to his remark about foreign companies being heavily involved, with a consequent absence of any British control over their prices and movements, will my right hon.


Friend bear this in mind when he reconsiders the future of the coal industry in this country, and call a halt to any accelerated shut-down of coal mines?

Mr. Marsh: That is a rather wider point, and an issue of fuel policy, which the House will have opportunities to discuss.
My simple point is that, in this case, for very exceptional reasons, the increased cost can be seen. Given that there is a heavy world demand for the petroleum products available, if one is not prepared to pay what other countries are paying—some are paying more and most have put up their prices; West Germany, Holland, Sweden, Belgium, Switzerland, Norway, Denmark and Italy, for example—one will find that one cannot have the oil.
The purpose is to be realistic, and I should have thought that most people would realise that the increase is about as low as anyone expected and rather lower than some of the forecasts.

Mr. Burden: When will the increases operate? Would the right hon. Gentleman consider discussing with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer the possibility of reducing the petroleum levy from 3s. 7d. a gallon to 3s. 5d. a gallon so that the prices need not be increased?

Mr. Marsh: That would be an extraordinarily expensive exercise. It should be made clear that there is no Government control over these prices. I have been asked for advice, on behalf of the Government, by the companies and I have given that advice. We expect them to conform to it.

Mr. Burden: When will the increases operate?

Mr. Marsh: That is a matter for the companies, but soon.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: Even though the cost of promotional advertising may have only a very marginal effect on the

cost of petrol, has the Minister taken any steps to abolish some of the crazy schemes which are in operation at the moment? In spite of the claims made for a free market. I am certain that most motorists would not know whether they had a tiger in their tank.

Mr. Marsh: A distinction has to be drawn between petrol retailers and oil in bulk. Much of the advertising and many of the give-away schemes are not matters for the companies, but for individual garages; and in any case they certainly do not affect fuel oil, which is one of the biggest sectors here.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a lot of business ahead of us.

BILLS PRESENTED

GREENWICH HOSPITAL

Bill to amend the enactments relating to Greenwich Hospital in respect of the investment of capital money and the annual estimates of income and expenditure, presented by Mr. Healey; supported by Mr. G. W. Reynolds, Mr. Niall MacDermot and Mr. Maurice Foley; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed.[Bill 295.]

DEVELOPMENT OF PLAY-GROUPS (No. 2)

Bill to promote, assist and support the development of play-groups and other activities for pre-school children, presented by Miss Joan Lestor; supported by Dr. David Kerr, Mrs. Gwyneth Dun-woody, Mr. Hector Hughes, and Mr. Neil Carmichael; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed.[Bill 296.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Charles Grey.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[22ND ALLOTTED DAY] [2nd Series]

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL AIRPORT POLICY

4.14 p.m.

Mr. Robert Carr: I beg to move,
That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to set up an independent committee of inquiry into national airport policy in the context of which a decision on a third London airport could be taken; and to delay a final decision on the siting of such an airport until the committee has published a report on this issue.
The Motion obviously arises out of the Stansted affair and also obviously includes it within its scope, but it goes much wider than Stansted and, in our view, it is right and proper that it should do so. I would say at the outset of my remarks that the object of our Motion is not to come down either for or against Stansted or to come down for, or against any other particular location for a third London airport.
In the Motion, in effect, we are saying four things. First, we say that a decision to site a new international airport at Stansted, or anywhere else for that matter, ought not to be taken in isolation but ought to be taken only in the context of an overall national airport policy.
Secondly, we say that the case for or against Stansted and the other possible sites is still non-proven—non-proven both in the wider context as being part of the national airport pattern and non-proven also in the narrower sense as affects the best location for a third airport to serve the London area.
Thirdly, we say that there ought therefore, as a matter of urgency, to be an independent and highly professional and comprehensive inquiry into the whole question of national airport policy, and within that context into the need for a third London airport and the best location for it.
Fourthly, we say that no irrevocable action should be taken by the Government to implement their present Stansted decision until the report from such an inquiry has been obtained.
This is not, or at least it ought not to be, a partisan Motion. I want to urge the Government and the whole House to consider it objectively. I believe that the Government will make a very great mistake if a false sense of prestige or a miscalculated judgment of the urgency of implementing some immediate decision leads them to cling obstinately to their present choice of Stansted without subjecting it to the test of an independent and professionally systematic assessment. But that is what they will do if they insist on pressing the Amendment which they have on the Order Paper.
Their decision may be right or it may be wrong. On this side of the House we know that there are strong arguments pointing towards Stansted. We also know that there are strong arguments pointing against it. They may be right in their decision, or they may be wrong. That is not the issue today. If it were, one could understand the Government feeling that they must cling, however obstinately, to their decision. But the Motion has been drawn deliberately not to present them with that issue, and I am sure that many hon. Members on both sides of the House will support me in urging the Government not to regard this as a matter of prestige. Even at this late stage they can think again. To me, as to many people outside the House, of all parties and opinions, there is need and time for the sort of inquiry that the Motion envisages.
I believe that the Motion reflects a very strong feeling, which ought to exist in a democracy, that no Government should high-handedly override a public protest which is as intense and widespread as it is in this case. Let there be no mistake about the scale and intensity of the objection to going ahead on the basis of the present evidence. Of course there is a passionate local protest from the Stansted area, and, of course, there would be a passionate local protest from any other area chosen.
But let not the Government imagine because there will be a protest where-ever they wish to put this airport, that somehow these different local protests cancel each other out or do not matter. The objection in this case is very much more than local. It comes strongly from professional bodies and expert opinion. It comes from individuals all


over the country living in areas not remotely affected in any direct way by whether there is an airport at Stansted. I have been surprised—and I know from speaking to them that many other hon. Members have been similarly surprised—by the number of letters which I have received on this subject with no direct interest in it.
For example, I have had a number of letters from my own constituents. If my constituents have any selfish interest in this matter, as they are south of the Thames, it is to see more London air traffic diverted to airports to the north of the Thames. They would suffer some effect, for example, from the location of an airport at some of the sites which have been suggested in south-east England. When I have letters from constituents on the subject protesting against this decision, they are not even to a minor extent serving their own selfish interests and are, in fact, expressing a much wider view. I find that other hon. Members have similar experiences.
The objection is also expressed strongly—indeed, one could say forcefully—throughout the national Press and many responsible journals. It is expressed, too—and I hope that the Government will not treat it as the least serious of the objections—in great strength in the House. Nearly half the hon. Members of the House, including a large number of hon. Gentlemen opposite—getting on for 100 of them—have signed a Motion, not necessarily condemning the choice of Stansted, but asking for the sort of inquiry for which this Motion asks before irrevocable action is taken.
All feel that the decision should not be allowed to go ahead on the basis of the present published evidence and without further inquiry. All feel that the decision-taking machinery has not given full weight to the factors of social cost, national planning, and transport problems ancillary to the development of a major airport. All feel that the way in which the Stansted decision has been dealt with is a matter of importance greater than itself; that it is, in a sense, a precedent and touchstone for future great planning decisions with which we in this country are bound to be faced in a technological world.
These feelings are even shared by people with interests in and a single-minded commitment to aviation, including many who happen to think that Stansted will eventually be proved to be the right choice. To give some evidence of this, I quote from an editorial in the Aeroplane of 17th May of this year. It stated:
The long-awaited decision … illustrates the traditional propensity of British bureaucracy to decide issues on the basis of convenience rather than logic.
Later, it stated:
… the Government … very foolishly decided that 'nothing useful seemed likely to be achieved by initiating a further round of public discussion'. Consequently it proceeded to conduct a very thorough re-examination' in complete secrecy, even suppressing the Blake report till last week.
In the context of my quotation, "last week" means the week before, 17th May.
The editorial concluded:
All that secrecy in fact achieved was to inhibit serious debate while encouraging wild talk. The moral is clear: future airport planning must allow for intelligent and informed public discussion.
This severe criticism came from Britain's leading air transport journal, which, at the same time, made it clear that it supported the Stansted decision.
I have laboured this point because I want the Government to accept that the objection to their proposal and the demand for a wider, deeper and more open inquiry before irrevocable action is taken—are not based only on local opposition and the views of people wherever they live who are somehow opposed in principle to this sort of project. This criticism is also to be found among those who have a committed interest to aviation and who believe that, when it is properly inquired into, the Government's decision on Stansted could be supported by the evidence. However, these people still feel that a decision of this sort should not go forward without the full, professional, technical and open inquiry that it deserves.
This volume and weight of objection should not be overridden. The gentlemen in Whitehall may know best: but especially in matters like this, which have such an enormous impact—and nobody can deny the enormity of the impact on people's lives and the amenities of the area, which are enjoyed by a large


number of people who do not live in the area—the gentlemen in Whitehall must be prepared to prove, openly and in public, that they do, in fact, know best. It is rather strange to think that only yesterday the Government published a new White Paper on planning procedures. That document recognises—indeed, if its proposals come into force, will encourage—the need for further improvement based on a system of local autonomy.
Naturally, everybody realises that there are some matters where the decision must be taken by the Government centrally. Everybody realises that in some cases, where there has been a local inquiry, the Government must override the inspector's report. While we all accept that, on such occasions there is a particular duty on the Government to make sure that the presentation of their case is full and scrupulous. We do not feel that the case we have yet had from the Government meets those tests. That is where the Government have so far failed and that is the reason for the weighty and widespread demand for further study before irrevocable action is taken.
I am not speaking in a party sense when I say—indeed, I believe I speak on behalf of many people, both inside and outside Parliament—that it is intolerable that the Government should refuse to put their secretly-made decision to the test of deep, public and open inquiry. It is intolerable, first, because this is undeniably a case of exceptional importance. It is intolerable, secondly, because the views of the inspector and his technical assessor, which the Government are overriding by their present proposals, happen to have been particularly strongly and categorically expressed. It is intolerable, thirdly, because the Government's White Paper, which attempts to justify their action in overriding the local inspector, is a hopelessly inadequate document. It really is a document which is an insult to intelligent people.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Douglas Jay): The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Douglas Jay) indicated dissent.

Mr. Carr: The right hon. Gentleman can shake his head in dissent, but I beg of him, if he feels that way, to get out of the corridors of Whitehall and speak to the economists, aviation experts, town planners and university people—and

many people who, incidentally, tend naturally to be sympathetic with the thinking of the right hon. Gentleman's party and who, espouse the cause of national planning perhaps more than we instinctively do—when he will find them expressing a feeling of intolerance about the way in which the Government propose to go ahead with this project.
I wish to consider something of the process of how this decision has come to be taken. It started when the Conservative Government were in power. The report of an inter-departmental committee, published in 1964, found in favour of Stansted, and the then Conservative Government supported that choice, subject to the opportunity for local inquiry. That inter-departmental committee—it was inter-departmental in the sense that it contained representatives of more than one Department—was properly predominantly aviation orientated. I say "properly" because it would have been the height of idiocy to have started considering the siting of an airport unless it could be shown to be technacilly feasible as an airport. That is why it is important that the initial stages in a matter of this sort should be conducted by a committee which is strongly aviation orientated in specialisation and outlook.
Having supported that choice on that basis, the Conservative Government of the day made it subject to the opportunity for local inquiry. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home), the then Prime Minister, made it absolutely clear that no final decision had been, or would be, taken until there has been a thorough public inquiry and, moreover that the door had not been closed against the consideration of alternative sites. He made that clear before the 1964 General Election and the newly-elected Labour Government were quick to reaffirm that view. Indeed, Sir Milner Holland, Q.C., on behalf of the Ministry of Aviation, at the opening of the public inquiry, said categorically that no decision had been taken and that no decision would be made until the report had been received.
That disposes of a suggestion which, I am sorry to say, I have heard in some quarters, that the present Government,


when they came into office, found themselves with their hands tied, committed to this decision, and could not run away from it. I am glad to see the right hon. Gentleman shake his head, because I am sure that that was not the case and, indeed, the Government have openly admitted that it was not the case. Nevertheless, it is a story that has been put about in some quarters.
Having disposed of that suggestion, we are left to consider the inspector's report and the Government's White Paper on their merits. Although these documents have been widely quoted, I think that I ought to give the House four quotations from the published report of the local inquiry, and I start with the general conclusions in paragraph 77 of the report by the technical assessor, Mr. J. W. S. Brancker. He states:
I am extremely hesitant to suggest anything which may lead to delay, but much of the evidence submitted seemed to me rather superficial and I would be very much happier to see a general examination in more depth before any firm decision is taken.
That was the view of the technical assessor.
Let us see what the inspector, Mr. J. D. Blake, had to say in his report. We read in paragraph 47:
I suggest that, when a passenger survey has been made"—
I will return to that point later—
a review of the national pattern for the major airports be made.
In other words, the inspector was suggesting exactly what we are suggesting in our Motion.
Paragraph 21 of the report is the most well known, and this is what Mr. Blake gave as his opinion:
It would be a calamity for the neighbourhood if a major airport were placed at Stansted. Such a decision could only be justified by national necessity. Necessity was not proved by evidence at this inquiry.
Finally, in this connection, I turn to the last paragraph of the inspector's report, which is his summary. Paragraph 49, in page 8 states:
In my opinion, a review of the whole problem should be undertaken by a committee equally interested in traffic in the air, traffic on the ground, regional planning and national planning. The review should cover military as well as civil aviation.

The recommendations and conclusions of the inspector and his technical assessor were extremely categorical and strong, and if a Government intend to over-ride such very strong and categorical conclusions from an important local inquiry of this kind the reasons must be given.
It seems extraordinary to us that at the same time as the Government are refusing to reopen the inquiry to institute a new inquiry of a different kind into this matter, they do not hesitate for one moment to ask for a new inquiry into the important but relatively much smaller matter of a hovercraft base at Pegwell Bay. I do not complain about the latter decision, but the two things do not seem to us to be in scale.
To refuse a new and deeper inquiry requested as a result of an inquiry such as this into Stansted, seems to us to be out of all proportion or scale and to have no proper sense of priority compared with other similar decisions that have been taken and are constantly being taken by this and previous Governments.
Instead of having the sort of inquiry asked for by the inspector—independent and open, as was surely meant by him—the Government have clutched the matter to their bosom. They have referred it for consideration to the same people, or at least to the very same organisations, who produced the original idea, but failed to back it at the inquiry with what the inspector and the assessor thought was adequate evidence. Moreover, they have shrouded the report in secrecy until they have come forward with their own White Paper. They have done that until, surprise of surprise, they have come back, after another whole year of cud-chewing, with a decision to adhere to their original choice, and they support it with a White Paper which carries no conviction with any one except themselves.
As I have said, the Government may be right—there are plenty of other people who also think they may be right—but I have met no one, not even including those who do believe that the Government are right, who are convinced of their rightness by the arguments and information in the White Paper. It is superficial, it is incomplete, and in some cases it is misleading. I want to give the House some examples of its defects. I must only take time to give a few examples. I could


find many more than I shall give, but I believe that those I shall give are important.
First of all, I want to draw attention to what is said about the utilisation of Heathrow and Gatwick, the existing airports for London, because the degree of utilisation which can be obtained at those airports must affect, at least, the timing of the need for a third London Airport and must, perhaps, affect the capacity required of a third London airport, and must, therefore, affect, perhaps its location as well.
Why is it that in paragraph 7 of the White Paper the Government make the statement that the maximum sustainable hourly capacities at Heathrow and Gatwick are 64 and 45 movements respectively? I ask, because that is very much lower than is achieved in major United States airports—very much lower, indeed; not marginally lower.
The may be good reasons for that—I happen to know, or think that I happen to know, some of them—but what are they? They are not stated in this report.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Accidents.

Mr. Carr: The hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Raphael Tuck) mutters "Accidents", but if he compares the United States' record with the British record, the comparison in total air accidents does not sustain that charge—

Mr. Raphael Tuck: New York against Heathrow?

Mr. Carr: I am not making any charges against the safety of Heathrow or of any British airport. I happen to know something of the subject, and once conducted an Estimates Committee inquiry into it. I know that the safety standards of our airports are thought by the pilots and airlines of all countries to be amongst the highest—probably are the highest—in the world. We want to keep them that way.
That is why I say that I know some reasons why I would not support attempts to lying the capacity of utilisation of our airports right up to those of some American airports. But the difference between the two is enormous—it really is. Good reasons for accepting 64 and 45 movements as the maximum sustainable

hourly capacity should be given, and this White Paper is incomplete without those reasons.
For example, do the estimates of the maximum hourly movements make allowances for the use of a computer assisted air traffic control system, on which much work has been done and is being done at the Royal Radar Establishment at Malvern? That is an important factor, but it is not stated here. Many experts who have spoken to me over the last few weeks and months genuinely believe that with the latest techniques and equipment we can build up the capacity of existing London airports, if not to the highest American levels at least to levels considerably above the maximum quoted here, and still maintain our record of unsurpassed safety.

Mr. R. F. H. Dobson: May I draw the attention of the right hon. Member to the general inquiry report, appendix 7, by Mr. Brancker, in which he said that he accepts 64 as the normal rate for Heathrow and 45 for Gatwick? That seems to cut across the case which the right hon. Member is putting.

Mr. Carr: All I am saying is that there is this unsupported statement in the White Paper, which may be wrong or right. The White Paper does not attempt to argue, but merely states it as a fact and on a vital matter such as this that is a sign of weakness.
Related to it is the lack of decision in the White Paper about the rôle of Gatwick. The White Paper indicates clearly that no decision has been taken of whether or not, lot alone when, a second runway should be built at Gatwick. Surely a decision about building a second runway there or not ought to precede a decision on the siting of the third airport.
There is the statement that topographical features will never allow Gatwick to be used without restriction by all kinds of long-haul traffic, but who says so? Again, experts can be found who do not rule out the possibility of earth-moving to reduce the tops of hills. Such things are not unknown in the United States. Perhaps it would be wrong to do it, but to say without supporting argument that Gatwick can never take all long-haul jets without restriction is to belittle the


whole responsibility of argument in the White Paper.
Then there is the question of traffic control implications. The paragraph contains no recognition of the fact that some highly-qualified experts differ from the official view about the extent to which different locations need interfere with each other and who believe that with the new equipment and techniques it may be possible to compress the air patterns, again without any deterioration in our high standards of safety. These experts may be wrong, but their views cannot be ignored. At least, some argument should be put in support of the statement made in the White Paper.

Mr. John Rankin: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that he is now on a very dangerous argument? He is putting at hazard the whole question of safety.[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Of course he is. In view of what he is saying ought he not, for the information of the House, to name the experts on whom he relies, in view of the fact that the airport has its experts also who are guiding it on the lines that lead to greater safety for the passenger?

Mr. Carr: The hon. Member is quite wrong, and most irresponsible, in suggesting that anything I am saying is putting safety at hazard. I have been at great pains to pay tribute to our record of airport safety and to say that it must be maintained. What I am saying is that there are people—

Mr. Rankin: Who are they?

Mr. Carr: It is not right or proper in the House to name individuals. This is exactly why there should be an inquiry of the kind we are talking about.
I am, or more accurately was, a scientist. I know from my own experience of mixing with them the clash of opinion between highly reputable scientific and technological experts. No one can be accepted as absolutely certain to be right. The proper course when making extremely important decisions of this kind is to confront the differing views and to try to form a judgment between them. It is our complaint that this is not being done, or that, if it has been done, it has not been demonstrably done by anything which is said in the White Paper.
The statements in the White Paper are not in any way backed up by arguments. Let us look at the comparative costings between Stansted and Sheppey. Again, figures are trotted out without any substantiation and they are disputed by many people with qualifications which make them worthy of a hearing. On the road and rail access costs, it is disputed that British Railways' provision of access to Sheppey would be very much lower than is stated in the report. I do not know whether it would or not, but this should be tested. Some obvious items seem to have been left out of the balance sheet altogether.
There must be a consequential cost of closing down Wethersfield air base which is used by the United States Air Force and would have to be closed if the Stansted project went ahead. Does that come into the calculations? Does it lead to the conviction that these costings have been done with any seriousness? I could go on with more particular examples; but the biggest absence of all in these costings is the absence of any attempt to produce a cost-benefit analysis for alternative sites taking into account total economic and social costs. For example, I mentioned the rail costs which might have appeared favourable to the case of Sheppey, but now I mention an aspect which appears unfavourable to Sheppey.
There must be an enormous extra cost which, with modern techniques, could be given some quantification, of having a major airport at the south-east tip of the country which would mean that all freight and passengers exported or brought in would have to be taken to and from the furthermost tip of the country. That would be an enormous extra cost which could go on the balance sheet against Sheppey and could be shown in the balance sheet in favour of Stansted or other sites to the north or north-west of London, but these items do not appear in the report.
There is no attempt to bring in this sort of proper analysis and planning. That is another reason why I said that the President of the Board of Trade should go out of the House and away from the corridors of Whitehall to talk with people who know about these things. Then he would understand that there are reasons why they have no respect for this White Paper.
Although in the White Paper the Government admit that
the strongest of the objections is on regional planning grounds
there is no reference to the views of the South-East Economic Planning Council.
The Council was not even consulted. For what reason did the present Foreign Secretary set up planning councils if they were not to be consulted when there were great issues such as this? We are told that the absence of consultation was because of the rules arising from the Chalk Pit case. We believe that is all "hooey". The memorandum of the Stansted Working Party states, in paragraph 8, on page 3 of its report, that the Government did not feel themselves bound in other respects by the Chalk Pit case rules. If they were not acting under those rules in other respects, why did they call them In aid for their failure to consult the South-East Economic Planning Council? I cannot believe that it would have been impossible for the Government to have said that since this public inquiry was completed they had set up the planning councils in each area of the country and they believed it proper that the councils should be consulted. I am certain that from all parts of the House they would have had the blessing of hon. Members for that action.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is exactly what the Government are doing in the case of Exeter Airport and the South-West Economic Planning Council? This makes it all the more desirable that they should do so in this case.

Mr. Carr: I am glad to hear that at least the Government may be more reasonable about the South-West. In their other policies, towards the South-West, they appear to be behaving most unreasonably.

Mr. Peter Bessell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the South-West Economic Planning Council was consulted over the Portbury scheme? It recommended against the Government's decision, and the Government ignored the recommendation. That, perhaps, is the reason why the Government did not consult the South-East Economic Planning Council.

Mr. Carr: The hon. Member is less delicate than I was. I was refraining from suggesting to the Government that it was because they feared the advice they were likely to receive that they failed to consult the South-East Economic Planning Council.
Finally, among the examples of defects in the White Paper that I want to give there is no attempt in the White Paper seriously to relate the Standsted decision to any national pattern of requirements for airports, for both international and domestic services. Yet the rapid growth of air transport, particularly in the freight field, makes such a national pattern and policy more vital as each year passes. If there ever was a field where real national planning was required, this is surely it. It is so recognised in other countries.
How can the transport infrastructure, and the regional development policies, be planned, unless the pattern of airports both international and feeder airports, in conjunction with the railway pattern and the main trunk road pattern, has been taken into account? This is a field where a national planning really is required. Yet this Government of planners are failing to provide it.
So I could go on. The White Paper does not meet the need for substantiating the Government's decision. If it is right, it is not proved to be right in the White Paper. We believe that the case for an open independent and highly professional inquiry is unanswerable. Such an iquiry should look into national airport policy as a whole, and the London decision should be taken only in that wider context. Such an inquiry should take into account all related aspects, all implications tied up with airport development, and should be based on an assessment of total economic and social costs.
To use modern jargon—but it is jargon with a lot of expertise behind it—the solution of this problem requires a full systems analysis. There is no sign in the White Paper that anything equivalent to a full systems analysis has been applied to this decision. So the committee of inquiry which we want must include a range of professionally qualified members and must have power and financial resources to commission research and employ consultants as necessary.
If it has to be accepted—I believe anybody who looks at the case objectively must agree that it has to be accepted—that there is a need for a further inquiry, is there time for it? We have made some provisional inquiries—they can only be provisional—about the sort of time needed for what I have called a full systems analysis of the problems involved in reaching this decision. We are told that the time required might vary between one year and 18 months. In any case, we believe one could get firm enough solutions about the answers to the overall national pattern to provide an interim report on the need for, and the location of, the third London airport within a year.
The Government themselves say that a third airport is not required until the 1974–76 period. We believe, therefore, that one year could be afforded for such an inquiry. We believe that, if necessary, the time of coming into operation of the third airport could be stretched by a year to accommodate the inquiry if that were needed. We believe that could be done by greater utilisation of the existing airports, which I have already talked about. We believe that it could be done by the hurrying on of more up-to-date traffic control procedures. We believe that other developments, such as the electronic data processing of freight at London's airports, which shows promise of saving about 60 per cent. in storage space, 50 per cent. in office space, and 50 per cent. in ground personnel, could increase the capacity of Heathrow and, therefore, extend the date at which the third airport must be needed. So we say that there is time for such an inquiry.
To sum up, we believe that Britain must take her full share in what is one of the world's most rapidly growing activities, namely, the transport by air of passengers and freight.[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] If she is to do that, she must have an adequate network of airports with which to do it, but it must be a cohesive network of airports which has been carefully thought out. We believe—I am glad to learn from the reactions to my last remark that the whole House believes—that, for Britain's commercial prosperity and influence, to play our full part in air transport in the future will be just as important as it was in the

past for us to play a leading part in sea transport.
So we have no sympathy with those who want to opt out. We have no sympathy with some of those who do not want any airports at all and who say that it does not matter if the traffic goes off to the Continent. We believe that it matters vitally.
However, it so happens, unfortunately, that the impact of a major international airport on the community in which it is placed is a traumatic one. It really does tear the life of the area to pieces and alter the whole character of living for miles around. It is just because it has that impact in social terms that not only must we take great care to make the right decision, but we must also take great care to convince those whose lives are to be so dramatically affected that it is the right decision.
That is what is lacking here. If the Government have taken the right decision, it is not apparent. It is not apparent to the House, it is certainly not apparent to those concerned. Feelings on this subject run deep, because to large numbers of people air transport and its accompanying airports symbolise, probably more dramatically than anything else, both the hopes and the fears, the benefits and the penalties, of our technological age. We want—indeed, we must have—the economic benefits and the personal opportunities. But in obtaining these benefits we must ensure that we do not become slaves to technology. Therefore, time and money are well spent in taking great care to humanise and control the forces of technology.
This, we believe, is in the nature of a test case. We believe that there is need for further inquiry in an objective sense. We certainly believe that there is need for open inquiry in order to carry conviction with the public. And we believe that there is time for it. We do not believe that the Government should go ahead until such an inquiry has taken place, because, if they do, they will not be praised for the smack of firm Government. They will be blamed, and heavily blamed, for giving us a whiff of petty dictatorship. They will be wrong. I appeal to the Government to think again.

4.58 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Douglas Jay): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'welcomes the policy of Her Majesty's Government to plan airport requirements in the light of all relevant factors, including the effect on the local population, the needs of the travelling public, safety, agriculture and the protection of amenity; and approves their selection of a third London airport on this basis'
The right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) asked me to state what is the Government's airport policy. I will do so. The main objective of our airport policy is to ensure that Britain retains its present European lead in civil aviation and that we remain ahead of our competitors. Today, Heathrow attracts more traffic than any other airport in Europe, with already over 13 million passengers a year and freight traffic growing very rapidly. Clearly—here I am glad to agree with the right hon. Gentleman—international civil aviation will be of the first importance in the future, not merely to the travelling public, but to the United Kingdom balance of payments and, therefore, to our whole economic vitality.

Mr. F. A. Burden: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be careful with his figures, because the figures given by the head of the Airports Authority for the input through London Airport last year was 12 million. The figures for 1967 have not come out yet. I hope that when he gives figures the right hon. Gentleman will give figures which are correct.

Mr. Jay: If there are too many interruptions, I shall never get to the end. The figure for 1966 was about 13 million. For 1967, it will be still higher.
For a century, shipping contributed very substantially to Britain's invisible earnings, but the share of passenger traffic now travelling by air all over the world is growing fast and is bound to grow in the future. Therefore, unless we hold a substantial share of this growing air traffic, our balance of payments is bound to suffer.
Fortunately, we have so far succeeded in doing so. In 1966, the United Kingdom's exchange earnings from civil aviation were actually double those from

shipping. In addition, the direct foreign exchange earnings of the British Airports Authority in 1966 were £6 million, which, incidentally, is nearly twenty times the value of the agricultural imports which we could have saved by using the same area of land for agriculture.
If, therefore, we are to hold this traffic, we must offer to the public and to the airlines the first-class modern airports which they expect. A major effort is now being made by our main rivals to wrest from us the leadership we now hold in Europe and the tourist traffic and trade which go with it. France, in particular, has already settled the site for a major new airport only 15 miles from Paris, and is already planning its development. Holland, also, is extending its main international airport, and a fourth for New York is being planned.

Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, before they went ahead with their airport, the French considered it in the context of the Paris regional plan and consulted all the regional authorities?

Mr. Jay: So have we. I am not responsible for exactly what the French did, but, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman will have patience, I shall tell him of all the consultations which have gone on.

Mr. John Biggs-Davidson: Mr. John Biggs-Davidson (Chigwell) rose—

Mr. Jay: There will not be much room for other hon. Members if interruptions carry on like this.

Mr. Biggs-Davidson: Just a sentence. Did I hear the right hon. Gentleman say that he had consulted the regional planning authority?

Mr. Jay: I said that we had consulted many planning authorities, and we are doing so now.

Mr. Biggs-Davidson: The regional planning authority?

Mr. Jay: I shall come to that point if the hon. Gentleman will have a little patience.
Another aim of our airports policy is to encourage traffic at airports well outside London and, so far as possible, in the north of England and in Scotland.


Already, this traffic is growing, particularly at Manchester, Prestwick and Glasgow. The international passenger traffic from these and our other provincial airports is now rising at about 14 per cent. a year, and the Government are encouraging direct services from these airports to destinations overseas as quickly as the traffic justifies. I am also now systematically studying the need for new airport facilities in the long term in regions outside the South-East, and these plans will be discussed with the regional economic planning councils.
However, it is no good starting services before they are reasonably likely to be economic, since to do so would merely result in losses, partly at the expense of the taxpayer, to no purpose. At the moment, Manchester, Prestwick and Glasgow all have unused capacity. It will be some years, probably at least 10, before their present capacity is fully used. We must also face the hard fact, though we may regret it—I personally regret it—that 80 per cent. of the international air traffic now entering or leaving Heathrow and Gatwick is coming from and to places in the south-east of England. This was the conclusion, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, of an investigation made by the C.O.I. Social Survey in June, 1965. To ignore it is to be unrealistic.
Also, unfortunately, the 20 per cent. going elsewhere than London is spread out over many areas and not concentrated on one alone. However, not merely is the proportion coming to the South-East thus extremely high, but the total is increasing rapidly, also by about 14 per cent. a year, in the case of the international airports in the south-east of England.
I come now to the question which I was asked about numbers. The number of people likely to use Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted this year is about 14½ million, and this total is increasing by about 1½ million a year. By 1975, the total is likely to be about 30 million. This in itself shows that we are dealing no longer with a small minority but with a total number of persons per year, British and overseas visitors together, which will before very long be several times the whole population of London.
In these circumstances, the only sensible airports policy, in my view, unless we

are to relinquish our position in civil aviation altogether—which the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to do—is to develop one more major modern airport in the South-East to accept the traffic as Heathrow and Gatwick become saturated, and then to plan in the longer term for a further major airport right outside the South-East, probably in the Midlands or the North, to come into service later on when the present Midland and northern airports also become saturated. These longer-term plans must, incidentally, take account of a lot of probable technological advance in the meantime. This we are already planning to do, and we mean to use the time available to select the best possible site from all the relevant points of view.
The next necessity is to decide how soon the third inevitable major airport in the South-East will be essential. We can, and we shall, postpone the date by developing Heathrow and Gatwick to their fullest capacity, and that, also, is our present firm policy. First, the No. 1 runway at Heathrow will be extended to the furthest limits practicable, and the Airports Authority will start on this as soon as it can—this year, I hope—so that it can be completed by 1969. These runways are not, unfortunately, built in a few months.
Next, a second main runway will be built at Gatwick, and this will carry Gatwick's development as far as is practicable, in view of the limits set by the railway at one end and rising ground at the other. I noted what the right hon. Gentleman said about that, but I assure him that it has been fully taken into account. This extension should be completed at Gatwick by 1971 or 1972.

Mr. R. Carr: Do I take it that the right hon. Gentleman is now making a statement which goes beyond the White Paper? The White Paper is not clear about whether there will or will not be a second runway at Gatwick.

Mr. Jay: The White Paper mentions the second runway at Gatwick. I am saying categorically that we mean to proceed with it. I have said that that extension should be completed by 1971 or 1972.
If we allow for that additional capacity for peak spreading in the use of airports and for the fact that aircraft in the


interval will increase in size, the two airports, Heathrow and Gatwick, are likely to become saturated by about 1974, though, clearly, we cannot be absolutely exact in these forecasts.
If an adequate modern airport equal to the standards of that period is to be ready by 1974, we must start, first, to plan it and, second, to build it many years earlier. The construction of a full two-runway airport with all the necessary terminal buildings—I am sorry that this is so, but it is so—will take about four years. Before that, the necessary planning and some initial building, which must follow the selection of the site, will take two to three years. A start on the terminal complex, therefore, must be made now, and, this, unfortunately, cannot be done unless the proposed pattern of the airport and the number of runways, and so on, is known. That is why a decision has become urgent if planning by all the many authorities concerned is to go forward.
Those who argue that there is no need for an airport at Stansted must, therefore, argue either that there is no need for a third international airport at all or that there is some other site in the South-East which is preferable to Stansted. In making a choice between the alternatives, as it is clear we must, the following salient facts must be recognised at the start. First, we must either choose a site close to a large built-up area, in which case the noise nuisance will be maximised, or we must go to open country, in which case some farm land will be lost and some countryside, unhappily, sacrificed. There is no escape from that dilemma, whatever we do. Secondly, whatever site we select, there is again—much and deeply as we regret it—bound to be local disturbance and very natural resistance from those in the area who do not have to find or name the alternatives.
Thirdly, there already exists over this small island an extemely complex pattern of air traffic every day and every night—in all weathers—with twice as many military movements daily as civil, even at the present time. One aircraft is landing at Heathrow every minute, and collisions must be avoided. Safety must be regarded as absolutely paramount and I am not prepared to take any risks with it.

Mr. Rankin: My right hon. Friend has just said that in summer one aircraft

lands at Heathrow every minute. What does he regard as saturation at the airport, if that is not very near it?

Mr. Jay: That is saturation point in the matter of the number of aircraft per unit of time. It is not necessarily the total saturation of the aircraft. I should have said one aircraft landing or taking off every minute.
Fourthly, there are many people who approach the choice—frankly, I did so myself—with the natural belief that we can minimise the local disturbance by choosing a site on our east coast. Unfortunately, this is largely an illusion. As the prevailing winds are westerly in southern England, and as jet aircraft make the most intense noise on take-off, it follows that an airport on our east coast must generate most noise over inland areas.
It is also unfortunate, but true, that in the case of the only practical east coast sites—Cliffe, Sheppey and Foulness—the population living within 12 miles to the west or south-west is particularly large. That is just an unfortunate geographical accident. South-west of Foulness are Southend and Leigh-on-Sea, only about eight miles away, with a population of 170,000. South-west of Sheppey are the Medway towns, 10 to 12 miles away, with a population of over 200,000, and southwest of Cliffe are Gravesend, Tilbury and south-east London.

Mr. Peter Kirk: Mr. Peter Kirk (Saffron Walden) rose—

Mr. Jay: I am anxious to give way. but I do not want to go on for too long.

Mr. Kirk: If the prevailing wind is westerly, the wind is from west to east and therefore, surely, it is the population on the east side that matters?

Mr. Jay: If the hon. Gentleman has ever been to Heathrow he must know that when the aircraft are taking off in a westerly direction the maximum noise is just west of the airport.

Mr. Kirk: Just west, yes.

Mr. Jay: The figures of 200,000 and 170,000 compare with a smaller population at Bishop's Stortford, Harlow and Sawbridgworth, which are immediately south-west of Stansted. Even after the planned expansion of Harlow is reached


in about 1981 the population will be only about 120,000. [Interruption.] I am not provoking the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk) to rise. I fully agree with him that Bishop's Stortford is closer to the airport than some of the other towns I have mentioned.
The only rational way of making a choice, therefore, is to compare all the practicable sites from the point of view of safety, noise, nearness to London, transport, convenience to passengers, local planning, effects on farming and the countryside, and cost to the taxpayers. To be fair to the previous Government, this is what they did. They set up in 1961—six years ago—an inter-departmental committee, which examined this choice so thoroughly that it did not report to the then Minister of Aviation until June, 1963. The then Minister, Mr. Julian Amery, having further rightly examined the Report for many months, published it in March, 1964, with a foreword in which he stated categorically that the Report
… concludes that Stansted airport should be selected and designated as London's third airport. The Government believe that this is the right choice".
The previous Government thus believed three years ago that, after the preceding two or three years' examination, it was possible for Ministers to make up their minds, and he announced their decision then.
The Minister also then said that there should be a chance
…to consider and discuss the reasons for the choice of Stansted.
We should notice that he said "the reasons" and not the choice itself. We decided, however, that this was not good enough, and two further inquiries have been held since.
The then Minister of Housing and Local Government—the present Lord President—and my predecessor as Minister of Aviation—the present Home Secretary—set up such an inquiry in 1965. It was not required under planning law and consequently was not a statutory public inquiry.
The nature and function of the inquiry have been somewhat misunderstood. The function of the inspector was not to act as a judge or take decisions, but to hear local objections and make recommendations to the Minister, upon whom the duty

fell of taking the decision. It was the function of the inspector at the inquiry to hear local objections to the individual project proposed; but though it was possible for alternatives to be mentioned or argued, the inspector was not asked to recommend an alternative nor to hear full local objections to possible alternatives.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Before he moves on from the Inspector's Report, could the President of the Board of Trade indicate what conclusion the inspector could have come to that was clearer in its indications than that which the inspector reached, and which might have moved the Government to take some notice of what he said?

Mr. Jay: I am coming to the inspector's conclusions, and the hon. Gentleman is only occupying time.[Interruption.] If the House does not wish to hear the case I will not make it.
When, in June, 1966, we received the inspector's report, stating very naturally all the local difficulties over Stansted, we were faced with this situation. If all the alternative 10 or so possible sites were to be examined by separate public inquiries, each inquiry would almost certainly find that the objections to that particular one were formidable, as they all are, and each inquiry would take probably a year, if not more. If this procedure were followed, the process might have lasted a very long time, and by the end we should very possibly have had neither an airport nor a decision.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: Mr. Cranley Onslow (Woking) rose—

Mr. Jay: I think that I had better go on.
At that point, accordingly, the then Minister of Housing and I took a decision similar to that taken by the previous Government—indeed the only decision which Ministers could rationally take in such circumstances—to hold a further full review comparing all possible alternative sites, conducted by all the Departments concerned, and from all the relevant points of view—that is, safety, planning, noise, agriculture, transport, costs and so on.
Our review, however, differed from that of the previous Government in 1963–64


in this sense. Theirs—this was publicly stated in the report—consisted almost entirely of aviation and air traffic experts with only two other representatives responsible for housing and transport. Our review went much wider and covered physical and economic planning aspects, and brought in the branches of the Government representing all the interests mentioned by the inspector in his recommendation. Incidentally, the individuals concerned in this inquiry were, with one exception, quite different from those who conducted the previous inquiry, and therefore brought fresh minds to the problem.
In holding this review, including agriculture, we were also carrying out the main positive recommendation of the inspector at the Stansted inquiry. This is what the inspector recommended:
In my opinion a review of the whole problem should be undertaken by a committee equally interested in traffic in the air, traffic on the ground, regional planning and national planning. The review should cover military a well as civil aviation.
That is exactly what we did.
One hon. Member has raised the question of the South Eastern Planning Council. I think he takes rather lightly the matter of the Council on Tribunals. The advice that I received from all the legal advisers to the Government was that it would have been improper for me vis-ç-vis Parliament to consult not merely the South Eastern Planning Council but even the British Airports Authority, which I was not able to consult following a decision by the former Lord Chancellor, Lord Kilmuir, on 8th May, 1961. The right hon. Gentleman was a little lighthearted in describing the principles of the Council on Tribunals as being "all hooey". That is not the view that we take.[Interruption.] If the right hon. and learned Gentleman has the same respect for these rules as I have, there is no controversy between us.

Mr. Rippon: While accepting that there is a great deal of controversy about this—this is really a smokescreen—will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that he could properly within the rules have taken fresh evidence and either submitted it to the parties or reopened the inquiry?

Mr. Jay: The right hon. and learned Gentleman calls it "all hooey". His right hon. Friend calls it "all a smokescreen".

Mr. R. Carr: The right hon. Gentleman must take the blame for this interruption. I did not call the chalkpit rules "all hooey". What I called "all hooey" was using them as a reason for not consulting those who should be consulted, and I pointed out that in other respects the chalkpit rules were not applied by the Government.

Mr. Jay: If the right hon. Gentleman will look at what his own Lord Chancellor said, he will find that one conclusion follows from another.
This further comprehensive review which we held examined the whole ground over again over a period of five months in the light of the inspector's report and of all the local objections brought forward. That review was concluded last winter, and it came to the conclusion unanimously, just as did the Committee under the previous Government with separate people, that Stansted was the best—or, if hon. Members like, the least undesirable—of the alternatives.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government and I, however, were, frankly, not prepared even so—though there had been two inquiries—to take it at that, and we proceeded for a further period of months to re-examine exhaustively the expert evidence—and this was the reason, candidly, for the still further delay in reaching a decision, for which I have frequently had to apologise in the House to hon. Members on both sides who ask me why an urgent decision was being delayed. I have never believed that experts should be assumed to be right even on their own subjects, but if non-experts are going to treat them as wrong they must be able to prove them wrong first.

Mr. R. H. Turton: Mr. R. H. Turton (Thirsk and Malton) rose—

Mr. Rankin: Surely there is a limit to interventions?

Mr. Jay: Just one more.

Mr. Turton: On the question of experts, the Deputy Director of Aerodromes


(Technical) of the Ministry told the Select Committee on Procedure that its propinquity to Heathrow and the alignment of its runways would limit the use of Stansted Airport especially with supersonic aircraft. Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether that advice has now been altered?

Mr. Jay: I am coming to that point also. In effect, however, the advice is that there is very little difficulty there, though there are a number of other cases of difficulty.
I was saying that as Ministers we reexamined all these points over again. After that my right hon. Friend and I and my colleagues were also firmly convinced that on a comparison of all the alternatives and the relevant factors the previous Government were right in selecting Stansted. We accordingly published the White Paper, which is based on the conclusion of the 1966 Interdepartmental Review.
I will now tell the House—with apologies for going on, but that is due to interruptions—the reason for the selection that we made. The only rational way of reaching a decision here is to examine each of the practicable alternatives in turn. Our own review covered 11: Ferrybridge, Castle Donnington, Dengie Flats, Gunfleet Sands, Plumstead Marshes, Silverstone, Padworth, Cliffe, Foulness, Stansted and Sheppey.
Ferrybridge and Castle Donnington were too far from London to be practicable alternatives, for the reasons I have already given. Dengie Flats and Gunfleet Sands are wholly or partly in the North Sea; and all the expert evidence available to me shows that to build an airport on such sites would be either completely impracticable or, if not that, enormously costly. Plumstead Marshes would both inflict intolerable noise on a very large population and clash from an air safety point of view with planes taking off or landing at Heathrow. Padworth, between Reading and Newbury, is at first sight, so it seemed to me, more attractive, but it also suffers from the fatal defect of lying on the east-west axis of Heathrow, and is, therefore, also unacceptable on safety grounds. Padworth also involves an air traffic clash with Farnborough, now a

heavily used research airfield for both civil and defence purposes.
Cliffe also appears promising at first sight, since the land is little used and is sited on the Thames Estuary. Unhappily, it is also too near on the east-west access to Heathrow and will involve a risk of collision on those occasions when the wind is westerly at Cliffe and easterly at Heathrow, which would mean, in effect, that Cliffe would have to be closed in those circumstances.
It is necessary, therefore—I really think that this is not in serious dispute—to find a site which is well clear of the east-west line from Heathrow, Gatwick and Farnborough and not so near heavily populated areas as to impose intolerable noise upon them. This leaves us, in effect, as all three inquiries have shown, with Stansted, Foulness and Sheppey and a possible site at Silverstone in the Midlands between Brackley and Northampton.
If one selected Sheppey, one would have to curtail substantially the use of Southend Airport, thus cancelling out some of the new capacity of Sheppey. One would also have to remove the firing range at Shoeburyness. Even if it were possible to find another site for this range, the removal would cost about £25 million, and—I doubt if all hon. Members have noticed this—one would have to find a new site for the firing range, which might involve about the same difficulties as we have found at Stansted and would not be popular wherever one put it. In addition to all that, the distance from Sheppey to central London is too great, and the accessibility to everywhere except Kent and south-east London is too inconvenient for anyone to be sure that airlines or passengers would be willing, with all the international competition that there is, to use an airport at Sheppey.
As journey times in the air are reduced and other cities compete with short journeys from airports to capitals, passengers will not be willing to tolerate too long a journey from our airports to London. We have to accept that. The journey from Sheppey would be about 100 minutes by road compared with 70 minutes from Stansted. Obviously, one cannot be exact to the minute on this, but the best estimate is that it would be 60 to 70 minutes by rail compared with 40 or 50 minutes from Stansted to Liverpool Street or King's Cross.
Even these times from Sheppey, however, could be achieved only by expenditure on rail and road facilities together of at least about £30 million and possibly over £40 million. This is, indeed, not surprising, because the rail traffic would have to plough through the Medway towns, and the road traffic would have to circumvent them.
The total cost of Sheppey, therefore, compared with the total cost of about £55 million at Stansted, if one includes the possible replacement of the military airfield at Wethersfield, would be at least £120 million, and probably nearer £130 million. In addition to this, the total number of people affected by noise would be greater at Sheppey than at Stansted.
There are two ranges for the calculation of those affected by noise: first, those living in the immediate area of take-off or landing—up to three or four miles; and the larger number still materially affected up to 10 or 12 miles. The White Paper gives the narrower test, and shows that the disturbance at Stansted would be one-twentieth of that at Heathrow, Silverstone one-half of that at Stansted, and Sheppey one-half of that at Silverstone. On this narrow test Sheppey comes out favourably. All the suggested alternatives would thus be far less affected by noise than the Heathrow area, but on this test Sheppey would be even less affected than the others.
On the wider test, however, of the 10 to 12-mile-range, which, in my view, one cannot ignore, there are, as I have said over 200,000 in the Medway towns, compared with 120,000 at Harlow, Bishop's Stortford and Sawbridgworth. If, therefore, we selected Sheppey, we would have to find another site for the firing range; we would spend at least £65 million more than at Stansted; we would cause noise disturbance to a greater number of people in total; and we would finish up with a very much more inconvenient airport, which some airlines might be unwilling to use. I cannot believe that this would be a sensible decision.
Foulness also looks attractive at first sight, because it borders on the coast. Its selection, however, would involve not merely the removal of the firing range, but the total closure of Southend Airport, which now carries a great deal of short-haul traffic. In addition, though, as the White Paper says, the land at Stansted is

of higher agricultural value than Cliffe, Sheppey and Foulness taken together, it is actually of rather lower value than the land at Foulness on its own, though higher than the land at Cliffe and on the actual Isle of Sheppey.
In addition, on the wider test of noise, the normal take-off from Foulness would be bound to cause major disturbance to Southend and Leigh, which have a total population of 170,000. On the test of nearness to London, Foulness, at a cost of about £25 million on road and rail, could be brought within 60 minutes by rail compared with Stansted's 40 to 50, and by road within 95 minutes compared with 70. Since Stansted is partly constructed already, the total cost of Foulness, including the removal of the firing range, transport, the closure of Southend Airport, and the use of marshy land—which makes construction more costly—the total cost of Foulness would also be about £65 million greater than Stansted on a comparable basis.
If, therefore, we were to choose Foulness, there would be a longer journey time to London; another site would have to be found for the firing range; the cost would be very much greater; a much larger number of people in total would be affected by noise; and more agricultural land of high value would be sacrificed. I cannot think that this would be a very sensible decision either.

Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we could get three international airports for that price on Humberside and in the South Yorkshire area which would possibly be of greater value to the economy?

Mr. Jay: If one wanted to go to Humberside, I am sure that that would be a sensible course. That leaves us with Silverstone and Stansted. Silverstone would of course, as elsewere, involve taking more additional land than Stansted, because 800 acres at Stansted is already in use, and would cause corresponding local disturbance in other ways, though fewer people would probably be affected by noise. Silverstone's other obvious attraction is accessibility to the Midlands as well as to London; even though the journey to London would be a good deal longer than from Stansted—60 minutes


by rail and 100 by road, against 40 to 50 and 70.
The insurmountable snag about Silverstone, however, it the air traffic control difficulty of fitting it into both the present pattern of military airfields in the South Midlands and the civil air corridor which runs north-west from London over this area. It is not merely—and I have seen this mistake in the Press—that there are eight military airfields in the neighbourhood, and that they are situated in the most inconvenient sites for take-off and landing at Silverstone, but that a major civil air corridor is involved as well.
It is this treble difficulty which means that, to ensure safety at Silverstone, we would have to transfer eight military airfields, whereas at Stansted we would only have to transfer Wethersfield. For a major modern two-runway airport requires not merely safe approach and take-off facilities in both westerly and easterly winds, but two stacking areas also: and all these have to be fitted in to existing traffic patterns.
It is the unanimous view of those responsible for air traffic control—and the House really cannot treat this lightly—that they could not guarantee safety if a major airport were sited at Silverstone, unless the eight military airfields were transferred elsewhere. Not merely, therefore, would this involve an expenditure on these airfields nearer to £100 million than £50 million, over and above the cost of Stansted; but—and some people have not noticed this either—we would have to find eight other sites, with all the local disturbance involved, in addition to the disturbance at Silverstone.
I do not say this would cause nine times the disturbance likely to be caused at Stansted; but it would certainly be a good many times greater. It is perfectly true that, had the previous Government 12 or 15 years ago decided to place these military airfields somewhere else, it might now be practicable to build a civil airport at Silverstone. I do not necessarily blame the previous Government for doing so, because these airfields had to go somewhere. But I am afraid they cannot blame us because their decisions, right or wrong, have made this particular alternative, now impracticable.
Even, however, if we did go to the huge expense now of transferring all these

military airfields in order to select Silverstone, we would still have to cause major local disturbance similar to that at Stansted; and we would finish up, at far greater cost, with an airport a good deal further from London. I cannot believe that that could conceivably be a sensible alternative either.
In contrast to those alternatives, Stansted itself has the great merit of being clear not merely of the east-west access from Heathrow, Gatwick and Farnborough, but also of the South Midland airfields, and the main approach across the Midlands to Heathrow. It is, therefore, far and away the best site from the point of view of safety and air traffic control. It clearly enjoys the shortest journey time to London—as I said, without trying to be exact to the minute, about 70 minutes by road and 40 or 50 minutes by rail to Liverpool Street or King's Cross. The cost would be much less than elsewhere at about £55 million, including both the road and rail links to the M11 and the Liverpool Street line and including an allowance for the cost of transferring the Wethersfield airfield. The lower cost at Stansted is due partly to the fact that an airport already exists and partly to the easier road and rail access.

Mr. Newens: I believe I heard my right hon. Friend say that the cost of Stansted is now to be £55 million, which is an advance of £10 million on the figures so far cited. Have we already advanced by £10 million on the White Paper?

Mr. Jay: It is an advance of £8 million. The White Paper said that it would be about £47 million, plus the cost of transferring Wethersfield. I am giving all the information that I can. The estimated cost of that is £8 million, so that is consistent with what has been said before.
The land to be taken at Stansted additional to the present 800 acres would naturally be less than would be needed elsewhere. There has been much confusion in public comments about the amount of land required which I want to clear up.
There are at present 800 acres occupied by Stansted Airport. To build the two major runways proposed and the terminal buildings would require another 2,800


acres, making 3,600 in all. Only if an eventual four-runway airport were required, which is a distant possibility certainly not needed until the 1980s, if at all, would a further 1,200 acres over and above that be wanted.
In terms of noise at Stansted there would be far less effect, on the narrower test, than at Heathrow, though rather more than at Sheppy or Foulness. But on the 10 or 12 miles test there would be far fewer people affected at Stansted than at either Foulness or Sheppey. The land at Stansted, though less would be needed, would certainly be of higher agricultural value than at Sheppey or Cliffe, but lower than at Foulness.
Stansted, therefore, gives us a far better airport from the air traffic point of view, with a shorter journey to central London, at lower cost both in money and land, and disturbing fewer people by noise than any of the other practical alternatives.
On all these grounds I do not think that any reasonable person who knows the facts and understands the arguments can come to any other conclusion than that reached by the two investigations under both Governments, that Stansted must be, to use Mr. Julian Amery's words, the right choice. Clearly, however, everything practicable must be done to minimise the inevitable local disturbance, which will follow wherever we go, and we should plan the development of the airport and new services needed with the greatest possible care.
Naturally, at Stansted, as would be the case elsewhere, a great many people must be distressed by the changes which such a development must mean to the area they know—I think we should all feel this in areas with which we are familiar—and all possible must be done to meet their anxieties.
The hon. Gentleman did not mention that, although there are strong feelings about it, there are two schools of thought even at Stansted. One organisation has collected as many as 5,000 signatures in favour of the Stansted development and I have seen many letters which have come from Stansted, Bishop's Stortford and Saffron Walden, but not from west London, which welcome the proposed airport development on the ground that it will bring new employment and more variety to the area.
I quote from a letter which has appeared in the Press from four residents of Saffron Walden, who say,
We would like an opportunity to say that we are enthusiastically for the airport. It must be good for all of us who live and work in the area. It will create new opportunities for us and our children, more variety of jobs, better facilities for shopping, for leisure time and all other activities.
—[Laughter.] Hon. Members laugh, but this is a point of view which we must respect. I respect both points of view in this discussion and I hope hon. Members opposite also respect them.

Mrs. Renée Short: My right hon. Friend pays great attention to letter writers from Saffron Walden and gives weight to their letters, but is he aware that all the local authorities in the area and the Hertfordshire County Council as well as the Essex County Council have all come out unilaterally against the Stansted decision? Does he not give weight to those authorities, which are the elected representatives of the people?

Mr. Jay: The Harlow Trades Council takes the other view. There are two points of view in this matter and I think that we should respect them both. There are also other points of view in other areas.
Another letter from Leigh-on-Sea, for instance, speaks of
… growing alarm amongst a very great number of people in Southend and the adjoining area that the campaign against the choice of Stansted as the third London airport will result in its being situated in the immediate vicinity of this heavily populated resort area.
That is a natural local point of view, but the fact is that from a national standpoint we must take account of all these points of view.
One essential in the development of Stansted, if the legitimate anxieties there are to be met as far as is humanly possible, is to ensure that no sort of sporadic sprawl in the building of houses or anything else should be permitted, but that there should be planned expansion at the right time and in the most suitable areas. We are determined to ensure this. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government intends to consult with the Airports Authority and the planning authorities to ensure


that the best possible arrangements go forward in good time.
I would also warn the House against assuming that an additional population will necessarily be required corresponding to the whole extra labour force needed by the airport. Some employees will naturally come from those already living in the area and the proportion will depend on the restraint placed on other expansion in the meanwhile.
It is impossible, however, to avoid some extra employment somewhere in the South-East if, for the reasons that I have given, we place an airport in the South-East. This is a difficulty which arises not just with airports, but with all service employment in all congested regions.
Nor, in the Government's view, can any serious case be made out for yet another inquiry into the problem after all those which have been conducted in the six years since 1961. The Minister of Aviation in the previous Government clearly thought in 1964 that the two years' inquiry which preceded that was sufficient when he publicly endorsed its conclusions. Since then more than three years have passed, and one public inquiry has been held and a further and more comprehensive review has been carried out both by experts and Ministers.
There is no ground whatever for believing that another site can be found near London of which no one has yet thought. Though I agree that all estimates of the cost of major building operations some years ahead are, as we all know, subject to margins of error, the comparative magnitude as between the different alternatives have been repeatedly reviewed and are as well known as they can he. No further inquiries would establish them down to the last shilling or even £.
Nor can I agree that this is a decision which ought to be handed over by the Government and Parliament to some outside unofficial body. It is right that all local objections should be heard and that is why we appointed a public inquiry. Indeed, if the Government's decision had been in favour of another site, a further public inquiry would have been necessary for that reason. But the choice nationally among all sites on national grounds is clearly a matter of

national policy for which the Government must take responsibility.
After all the investigations which have already been made, there is no more case for handing this decision over to an outside body than there is on the Government's decision on the level of pensions, or the level of Income Tax, or, for that matter, the level of defence expenditure. Nor after six years' examination is there further time to spend if the necessary planning and construction are to be completed soon enough and this airport is to be ready by the time Heathrow and Gatwick are saturated and if we are to keep abreast of our competitors in tourist and trade aviation, with all that that means to our future foreign exchange earnings and our national economic fortunes.
The decision on the third airport is, as I have said, only one part of the wider airport policy which includes the forward development of other airports much further from London as rapidly as the traffic allows, but, for all the reasons which I have given, I am convinced that the Government and Parliament taking a national view must make this decision and make it without delay.

5.52 p.m.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: I have two reasons and, I hope, justifications for intervening in the debate. The first is that I have a very strong constituency interest, having the privilege of representing Bishop's Stortford and Sawbridgeworth and other smaller places which will be manifestly affected if the airport is sited at Stansted. That is a privilege which I have now had for 22 years. My other reason is more general, and dates back even longer. Throughout my adult life I have taken a close and continuing interest in matters of town and country planning, and that also provides a major incentive for me to intervene in the debate.
The siting of an airport is, of course, a major exercise in town and country planning, and in this case we are faced with the melancholy paradox of seeing the Government, in taking this major planning decision, wholly disregarding, or at best shrugging off, those material considerations which an ordinary authority making an ordinary planning decision is under a statutory duty to observe.


Of course, in a small and crowded island such as this, we have many conflicts of land use which give rise to difficult and complex issues. They require, before a decision is taken, a full, informed and objective assessment of the considerations involved. The more difficult and complex the issues, the greater the need for full, informed and objective assessment.
All this is the A.B.C. of planning, and I would apologise for referring to it in the House were it not for the fact that it is evident that in this matter the Government so far have failed to get out of the kindergarten. They do not seem to have realised these fundamental and elementary principles of planning. These principles apply just as much, or more, in the siting of an airport as in any other decision about the use of land. The differences are differences of degree rather than of kind. They are differences which accentuate rather than derogate from the need for full planning consideration before the decision is taken.
The size of the area involved and the technical aspects of the matter do not lessen the need for taking these planning considerations into account; they increase them. The factors of air traffic control themselves are no doubt unique; but it is not unique to have to take account of complex technical and operational requirements. Where they arise, they must command careful and expert assessment, but they do not override all the other planning considerations and human factors. All the considerations have to be taken into account and an overall balance struck and decision made when, and when only, they have been taken into account.
This is the basis of planning, and this is precisely what the Government have not been doing. They are allowing one or two factors, important as they are, to pre-empt the decision without regard to the others. If a local planning authority acted in such a manner in the discharge of its planning duties, it would probably be liable to an action for breach of statutory duty.
There is no mystery about what are the material considerations to be taken into account. Each of the normal material considerations applies in this case. The House can judge how much or how little regard the Government have given to

them. First, there is proof of need in general; and then, if there be need in general, the question as to whether that need can be satisfied only or best in the particular area concerned. Only after that has been established does one come to the factors affecting the site itself, seeking to balance the technical advantages claimed for the site against the claims of competing or existing uses, together with any detrimental effect which there may be on the amenity and life of the neighbourhood, and taking into account cost and economic considerations, road access, traffic and so on.
These tests and the balancing of these considerations are fundamental to any planning decision, great or small, and should be done meticulously and openly. A major decision such as this requires, one would suppose, particular closeness of analysis, objectivity of judgment and openness of procedure. In fact, it seems to have received precisely the reverse. The Government seem simply to have assumed the tests of need to be in their favour. They have, as it were, put their starting post two hurdles down the course, that of need and that of locational need; and these are pretty stiff hurdles in the ordinary way for any private developer seeking permission to institute a use of land.
But it is quite apparent from this and many other things in this case that the Governmental gander feeds on quite a different sauce from that which the ordinary private citizen goose has to put up with. It is not only that they have assumed the need for a third national airport in general, and that quickly, but they have assumed the need for a third London airport. They assumed it and excluded this matter from the consideration of the 31-day inquiry. The need for a third London airport was postulated on the ipse dixit of the Government and forbidden to be canvassed or put in question at the public inquiry. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) has said, it was a case of the doctrine that the gentlemen in Whitehall know best. The published material on which such a conclusion has been based provides only a very slender basis for what is at best a very improbable assumption of omniscience.
The White Paper applies two tests, that of existing capacity and of the likely


growth of traffic. In regard to that, the White Paper says at paragraph 7 that
these considerations point to maximum sustainable hourly capacities in all weathers at the existing two London airports of 64 movements an hour at Heathrow and 45 movements an hour at Gatwick in the early years of the next decade.
We do not know whether that is the best and most realistic assessment or a cautious and pessimistic assessment. It is right that safety is the paramount consideration in this matter, but we know—it is referred to in the technical appendix to the report of the inquiry—that at New York and Chicago over 100 movements an hour have already been achieved.
The Government claim for a third London airport is based primarily, apparently, on a survey undertaken in 1965. In the White Paper, we read at paragraph 21:
Furthermore, a survey conducted for the Board of Trade by the Social Survey in 1965, of the origin and destination in the United Kingdom of international passengers passing through Heathrow and Gatwick, indicated that as much as 80 per cent. of London's international traffic is generated by the London conurbation and South-East England.
We see from the report what sort of survey that was from the following words in paragraph 21:
It was not conducted on such a scale that its results can be accepted as of great precision but it gives sound indications of the broad orders of magnitude.
Almost every word of that sentence which I have quoted cries out for examination and elucidation. It has not been subjected to examination and elucidation, however, because the objectors at the inquiry again were precluded from going into these matters.
Even so, the inspector found in his report, at paragraph 42, that
No origin and destination survey has been made of the passengers using Heathrow and Gatwick. Before deciding the location of the new airport it is, I think, essential to know where passengers are coming from and where they are going to. Insufficient attention has been given to the fact that the problem lies as much on the ground as in the air.
All that we have is some sort of sample survey conducted on what sort of basis and with what degree of intensity nobody knows.
It is incredible that the need for a third London airport should be regarded as finally established on such slender

evidence and research. The Government may accept it, but it is not a conclusion which can be taken as proved to the reasonable satisfaction of anybody outside the charmed circles of the Government.

Mr. Robert Howarth: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I will, but it will probably be the last time. I do not want to take too much time.

Mr. Howarth: I am obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. From what he is saying, am I to understand that the position of the Opposition officially is that the case has not been proved for the need for a third London airport?

Sir D. Walker-Smith: As the hon. Member should know, I do not speak officially for the Opposition. I speak for myself and I speak for many thousands of my constituents, and I speak sometimes, at least, I hope, in the language of reason and good sense. More than that I cannot claim. I am putting my point of view.
I come, then, to the question of the balancing of the pros and cons in the balance sheet which one has to strike in these planning decisions. The main advantages claimed are those of the viability of air traffic control and cost. They are, obviously, important, but not necessarily decisive. The viability of air traffic control could only be decisive, first, on the assumption that need is proved for a third London airport and, secondly, if Stansted were the only site where that viability could be obtained; and that we know is not so.
The President of the Board of Trade very fairly said costs were subject to margins of error. I respectfully suggest that they are subject to the widest possible margins of error when one looks at the cursory way in which the figures are given in paragraph 65 of the White Paper for Stansted and in paragraph 49 for Sheppey. The figures cry out for particularisation, especially the £40 million at Sheppey for the rail traffic and the £25 million relocation of Ministry of Defence facilities at Shoeburyness—what The Times has called "this dubious figure".
All those figures are necessarily imprecise. I am not a civil engineering contractor; but have a good deal of experience of civil engineering contracts in my professional capacity and I know how very widely estimates of cost may be defeated in the event, even with the advantage of detailed specifications, detailed bills of quantities and competitive tendering.
Is there any of that here? Are there any specifications or bills of quantities? Can anybody see them? I would be very much surprised if there were any, or they would be referred to in the White Paper. The margin of error is enormous. Put forward in the form that they are, the figures are of very little value.
As to the £40 million traffic figure, paragraph 64 of the White Paper is clearly over-optimistic about both road and rail access to Stansted. The road access by the M11, already overdue and already very much required for the relief of existing traffic congestion, would be partly defeated by introducing more traffic on to it; and the rail access is described in the White Paper as being
admittedly … a circuitous route",
which I take to be a masterpiece of understatement in the context. It is very difficult, to the point of impossibility, to believe that one would get road and rail access at Stansted for one-seventh of the cost, for example, at Sheppey, as claimed in the White Paper—£6 million as against £42 million. The House and the public should not be asked to accept a conclusion on such summary statistics and cursory costing.
I come next to the disadvantages admitted by the Government but undervalued and glossed over by them. First, the competing and existing uses, primarily, though not wholly, in this case agriculture. On this, the White Paper states in paragraph 66:
The area around Stansted consists of land of particularly high agricultural quality and the Government agrees with the inspector that the loss of many thousands of acres of Stansted is a substantial argument against this location for a third London airport.
Not only is it a question of money: It is a question of the loss of a way of life. Here in this part of south-east England we have a balaced community partaking of urban and rural alike—a rare thing An many parts of the country.
If the airport comes, that pattern will be irreparably damaged.
Next we come to the question of amenity—a compendious term in town and country planning but by no means abstract, vague or esoteric. Amenity means all those things which dignify and enrich life—quiet, privacy, freedom from intrusion and the like. All these things the siting of the airport would inevitably destroy, in a large area over two counties.
The greatest destruction of amenity comes from noise. One has to accept a certain amount of noise as the price of advance and progress in the 20th century; but here the price would be beyond the limits of acceptability. The report states it thus:
The Herts and Essex Hospital"—
which is in my constituency—
would have to close. This gives some indication of the nuisance to which houses, shops and other buildings will be subject. Soundproofing measures include closed double windows and air conditioning—the peak noise periods are in the summer when such conditions would not be popular. Nothing can be done to mitigate noise out of doors. At least 7,000 houses would be subject to grave nuisance by noise.
In answer to that, what the White Paper has to say sounds like slender special pleading. It says, on the question of noise disturbance:
However, the evidence of witnesses for two of the main objectors … as well as the evidence of the Ministry witness, was that the position in schools, and to a lesser extent in hospitals, was rather special in that it depended on the degree of interference with speech rather than on more generalised feelings of annoyance. It is therefore not possible to relate the effect of a major airport on schools and hospitals in the vicinity in its effect on houses, shops and other buildings.
Is it, then, suggested that my constituents should no longer speak in their houses? Is it suggested that the people of Bishop's Stortford and other places in East Herts should become a community of Trappists, and go round mute and dazed with the thunder of Stansted forever sounding in their ears?
It will be a matter of grave inconvenience and distress to thousands of households and a mortal blow to hospital and educational establishments in this area. Such injuries to amenity on an infinitely smaller scale have proved fatal to innumerable applications for planning


permission throughout the country. How comes it, then, that the Government, having strained so often at the gnat, are now prepared to swallow this outsize camel?
Then we turn to the question of services. Further evidence of the planning failure of the Government is this proposal to place the burden of further services and facilities of the new airport population on an area already stretched and strained in the matter of services by the rapidly expanding population of the postwar years and in the teeth of the widely proclaimed policies for the south-east region. I do not expect everybody to share my concern about the trials and troubles of my constituents. But I do expect them to share my concern about what it symptomises—the Government's failure of planning, aggravated by the procedures they have followed. They start with the assumption of various matters which should be proved and the consequential exclusion of those matters from the public inquiry. They then prepare to place their own idiosyncratic interpretations on the inspector's basic recommendations in paragraph 49. They reject an independent commission in favour of a Governmental review. On what grounds? Partly because of urgency, which depends on the cautiously pessimistic assumption of capacity, and partly because of what they say in paragraph 40 of the White Paper, namely,
Accordingly, nothing useful seemed likely to be achieved by initiating a further round of public discussion of the same material.
They then go on to talk about
renewed work and expense in preparing and submitting evidence.
It depends on what is meant by useful. To most people the ability to come to a right decision on a comprehensive consideration of all the factors would be undeniably useful; but to a Government already committed in their mind and heart, and which is only going through the motions of rethinking, such ability is not only useless but inconvenient.
Is this the Government's position? With their minds made up from the start do they propose to remain deaf and blind, however clear the message may be. There is no doubt about the message. It is not a message pointing specifically to any one alternative site. The message

points, however, unmistakably and unchallengeably, to a proper review and reappraisal, giving weight to all considerations. In doing that the matter must be broadened beyond the mere technical aspects.
I forget whether it was Lloyd George, Clemenceau, or who, who said that war was too important a matter to be left to the generals.

Hon. Members: It was Clemenceau.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: It was Clemenceau. I am obliged. I knew that it was one of those great men upon whom the Prime Minister models himself. Applying that to this case, the siting of an airport is obviously too important a matter to be left merely to the aviation experts.
Let the Government, even at this late hour, twixt the stirrup and the ground, resolve to abjure past error and to free themselves from the albatross of this premature and ill-considered decision. Let them do that which the Prime Minister always seems so strangely reluctant to do, but which wise and even great men have done through the ages—confess to the possibility of error and admit to the wisdom of second thoughts based on a full understanding of the complex issues involved.

6.18 p.m.

Mrs. Renée Short: If my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade had wanted to persuade anyone to agree with his case, he did not succeed. He has a poor case, and his arguments were the sort of arguments that indicated that he was trying hard to scrape round the bottom of the pot. I am happy to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) to Bishop's Stortford, Sawbridgeworth and other small villages in Hertfordshire, because I, too, have a considerable interest in what happens in Hertfordshire today, having for many years, until recently, been a county councillor. This was at the time when the previous Conservative Government took the decision, misguidedly as we believe, to place the third airport at Stansted.
I was the leader of the Labour Group on the County Planning Committee. I hasten to tell my right hon. Friends, as the right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) said, this is not a party political


issue. At that time it was a Conservative Government and Minister making a decision which was opposed by a Conservative county council, which opposition found no dissent on the county council.
In other words, the people most concerned locally on the county council—the planning authority—agreed that this was not the correct decision and opposed it because of the adverse effects it would have on the quality of life generally in Hertfordshire and especially that part which would be affected by the siting of this airport. Therefore, this is not a party political issue; I would add my plea to my right hon. Friends to reconsider, to be a little more forward-looking and to think a little less conventionally.
My right hon. Friend's speech showed that he is considering the problem of airport planning in the light of today's thought, but we are thinking of something which will be fully operative in 15 or 20 years and serving us at the turn of the century. Our ideas about how to service aircraft, about where to send and how to land them, will change rapidly in that time. My right hon. Friend's arguments showed an absolute lack of imagination.
I wish to speak about the effect on Hertfordshire. My right hon. Friend said that there will need to be an increase in population to serve the airport, and the county council have suggested that it will have 20,000 employees, with a considerable number of people providing their services. My right hon. Friend is wrong to say that a large proportion will come from people already there. Hertfordshire is not, fortunately, an area of unemployment; people will have to be imported, and this increase will be about 100,000 or 150,000 people.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing has great responsibility in this matter. The county council have supported the opposition to moving people into Hertfordshire. As they opposed the decision on Stansted in 1964 and the decision to increase the size of Stevenage—both by a Conservative Minister—both sides of the county council are united in their opposition to this proposal. It means that, in addition to the equivalent of four new towns in the county since the end of the war, and the equivalent of four new L.C.C. estates, with more planned, which create tremendous pres-

sure on the county's resources and have more than doubled the population since the war, there will be another 20,000 people.
The pressure on Hertfordshire's schools and land is considerable, and an increase of up to 150,000 people, whether in new towns or in the existing towns and villages, would be disastrous. I beg my right hon. Friends, in the interests of planning and of their policy on the South-East, for heaven's sake to think again. We do not want more growth points in the South-East. We have set our face against it. We are concerned about the drift from the North, and rightly so, as it has been going on for years and is a serious problem. Hertfordshire has had its share of new population from other parts of the South and has its plate full dealing with the present natural population increase which will occur every year now as a result of the increase in population from outside since 1945.
The arguments about the site of the new airport or whether we need one were unimpressive as my right hon. Friend stated them. This has not been thought out on a National Plan basis. I find the reasons why the relevant bodies in the South-East were not consulted quite unacceptable, and the needs of other parts of the country have not been considered either. The site in the Midlands has been subordinated and suppressed because of present military needs, but these also will change. I would not like to think that, for the next five or six years, there will be eight military airfields in the Silverstone area. My right hon. Friends have not given sufficient weight to this probable change.
Figures given in 1965 to the county council showed that at least 15 per cent. of the estimated increase in passengers by 1970 would need to change routes in London, involving travelling from Heathrow to Stansted by road. I do not want to belabour the point about connections between the two, but my right hon. Friend talked of 50 minutes at certain times of the day, when at the moment it is two and a half hours—but no doubt my right hon. Friends think that they will improve on that.
If 15 per cent. of the passengers were in this position in 1965, the figure is obviously much greater now and will be


even greater when the full requirements are met. I have a strong constituency interest in the Midlands and know that, in the Birmingham area, in April, 1966, B.E.A. introduced direct flights from Birmingham's Eldon Airport to four European centres, Amsterdam, Paris, Dusseldorf and Barcelona. In the short period since that limited number of flights was introduced, the company has found a considerable increase in passenger traffic of 13·6 per cent., and a 60 per cent. increase in cargo traffic, which is phenomenal. This shows the enormous potential for passenger and freight traffic in the Midlands.
Also, 40 per cent. of the cargo handled at Heathrow is generated in the Midlands and must travel by road to Heathrow and then to the Continent. This deals with my right hon. Friend's point that 80 per cent. of the traffic to London wants to stay there. It has not much choice at the moment, because the connections between the Continent and other airports in this country are minimal, but if facilities were provided, passenger and freight traffic would increase considerably, as Birmingham's experience has shown.
My right hon. Friends should consider the needs of expanding Birmingham airport or having another site in the Midlands or the North so as to ease pressure on Gatwick and Heathrow, as I am sure that demand exists in other parts of the country. My right hon. Friend said that all these matters had been considered by the inter-departmental working party, but the civil servants who made the original decision—as early, probably, as 1960–61—which was published in 1964, are the same people who have been examining the question again. They have been judge and jury in their own case. The trained civil servants have merely reinforced and underlined the decision which they made seven or so years ago. That is very unsatisfactory. I hope that my right hon. Friends will bear in mind the great concern which has been shown by the decision to go ahead with this site. It has caused controversy and very great disappointment, and I hope that my right hon. Friends will look at the matter again.
May I ask my right hon. Friend a specific question? There has been an

exaggerated number suggested for the schools likely to be affected. I do not agree with the figure of 80 which has been mentioned, but I know that the county council are concerned about the effect which this will have on schools. Both local authorities and private owners are concerned about the effects on a large number of houses. We know that by 1975–80 the line of the maximum noise nuisance around Stansted Airport will run straight through a hospital, and heaven help the patients and the nurses and doctors working in that hospital. Will my right hon. Friend say whether the £2½ million which the county council estimate will be the cost of soundproofing the schools—which will be required if the Stansted Airport goes forward—will be met by the Government? Will they recompense the county council for this sum? Or is this to be a rate burden on the county, which is not likely to receive any advantage or rate income as a result of siting the airport at Stansted? This is a matter which will affect private house owners and local authorities which are housing authorities in the area.
I know that many hon. Members wish to take part in the debate, and I will therefore conclude. I sincerely urge my right hon. Friends to give consideration to the matter again. I find it impossible to support them on it, and I shall abstain in the Division tonight.

6.33 p.m.

Mr. Peter Kirk: As my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) said in opening the debate, we are considering a national problem, but it will not have escaped notice that it has acquired a local angle rather sharply in the course of the debate. I welcome that for one reason if for no other—it enables me to agree with every word said by the hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Renée Short). That is the first time that it has ever happened to me, and I strongly suspect that it will be the last, but at least we can enjoy it while we have it. She has put forward the case of one who lives near the area, I want to put forward one or two reflections as the hon. Member who represents the area in which Stansted is situated. Although it is true that the constituents of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) will


probably suffer more from the noise than will mine, the physical disturbance will almost entirely be within the Saffron Walden division over the county boundary.
As has been indicated in the course of the debate, there is a history going back some way. Both parties and both governments are involved. The plain fact is that if we look at the matter clearly there has been no airport policy in this country for the last 20 years. A decision was made to build the major London Airport in the wrong place and on the wrong design, and ever since then we have been improvising to try and catch up. What is happening at Stansted is the last but the worst of the improvisations. This is the strongest argument of all for the type of review which my right hon. Friend urged, and the type of review urged in the Motion by the hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Newens) and myself which has attracted the support of 289 hon. Members, which, I think, is an unprecedented total.
If I look at the purely Standsted part of the history, I suppose that the immediate past starts with the report of the sub-committee of the Estimates Committee on London's airports, of which my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham was Chairman. The evidence given in relation to Stansted was quite clear. The only advantage of Stansted, the only reason it was being held and why it was proposed to put it on a care-and-maintenance basis at £100,000 a year—which made the estimates Committee lift up their eyebrows—was its runway. Again and again witnesses referred to "the asset that we have here—11,000 feet of concrete which the American have left behind". Nobody in his senses would ever have dreamed of siting a major international airport at Stansted if that runway had not been there and if it were not held in the possession of the British Airports Authority, as it is now, or in those days of the Ministry of Aviation.
There have been four inquiries—the Estimates Committee, the first interdepartmental committee, the inspector's inquiry and the secret inquiry; and all through them they have been rapidly adapting their plans to try to make some sense out of the development of Stansted. At the time of the Estimates Committee's inquiry, it was said that it was impossible to make Stansted function without con-

flicting with Heathrow unless there were an east-west runway as well as the present runway, north-east to south-west. When I first became hon. Member for Saffron Walden about two years ago, before the inspector's inquiry, we were told that two runways were needed, 6,000 feet apart, with the possibility of a third and shorter runway later. By the time the inquiry came around, the shorter runway had been dropped. After the inquiry, without any evidence having been heard, we were told that it was two pairs of parallel runways, 6,000 feet apart, each being 800 feet apart. This afternoon my right hon. Friend referred to building four runways at a later stage. Whether this was another two pairs of parallel runways or a second pair was not entirely clear.
In the course of the six years that this discussion has been going on, we have had four separate plans for Stansted. It will be interesting to know how many more will be produced before the airport is finally built. There have been four inquiries, one of which, and only one of which, was held in public and at a time and place when it was possible for people to make their views known. They could make them known on a very limited scale, but it is fair to recognise that the present Government and the former Minister of Aviation at least had a wider view than in the case of the Gatwick inquiry ten years ago. One must give the Government the fact that they allowed this slight widening of the chink. They may be regretting it now, but at the time they did it.
The result was an inquiry at the end of which, although the inspector was not allowed by his terms of reference to make any recommendation about alternative sites, he implied, as clearly as it was possible for him to do, that, on the evidence submitted to him, Stansted was not the right place and that a further and more general inquiry should take place to see whether a better site could be found. He divided his conclusions under six headings, five of which were against Stansted and one of which was in favour of Stansted.
The one in favour of Stansted concerned the question of air traffic control. He did not say, as some have implied, that this was the only site where it was possible to have an airport which did not conflict with Heathrow. What he said


was that it was true that air traffic control for Stansted was all right. But at the same time the technical assessor, Mr. Brancker, criticised what he regarded as the immutability of some of the evidence given by Government witnesses and the feeling that the airways were set for all time and could not be altered. When the right hon. Gentleman said that Cliffe was found to conflict with Heathrow, that is true of the present air lanes, but if he looks at the technical assessor's report he will find that the assessor thought it possible without much difficulty to rearrange the airways so that Cliffe became technically possible on the ground of air traffic control. On the ground of noise there is another argument, with which I may deal later.
On all five other grounds, the inspector found against Stansted. On town planning grounds, he said that it was an unsuitable site for a major new growth point. Perhaps I should mention in this connection a point made by the right hon. Gentleman—that there is considerable support for an airport at Stansted. As the Member of Parliament concerned, I know this to be true. I should not like to estimate the size of the support. In my own postbag I have received since 12th May just over 900 letters in favour of my point of view and four against it. Whether the support can be divided in that proportion I would not like to say, but it is fair to say that there is such support, although I do not believe that the support is for an airport. The support is for more diversified employment in the area and this is the real point to consider. But to achieve that by putting down a major international airport in the wrong place is a drastic cure for a mild social problem.
He found against Stansted on the question of access. We have heard a lot about this subject and we are told that, by the new road access, the journey could be made in 70 minutes. This view was heavily challenged at the inquiry and, in winding up, the principal counsel for the Ministry of Aviation, Sir Milner Holland, in an attempt to justify that 70-minute argument, was driven to a piece of verbal legerdemain and said:
If you felt, Sir, and I cannot put it better than this, that in the end the right thing was, on this method, to take the 50 minutes which is the contour line on this map and which is,

in fact, one mile up M.11, as Mr. Ker said, then add on whatever you think right for what is left which is 24 miles of motorway, if you take 50 m.p.h. for the motorway or something of that order at present, that gives you 79–80 minutes. I agree that if, as in the strictness of the law court, you took 50 minutes to Hackney Wick, as my witness so often repeated that it was 50 minutes to Hackney Wick, then you would get 50 minutes to Hackney Wick, then 4½ miles from Hackney Wick to the bottom M.11 (I think it is proposed the road should be improved), the Eastern Avenue extension, then the motorway, and then you would get 60 m.p.h. all the way from Hackney Wick to the airport.
He did not say how much time that would take, but obviously it would be considerable time.
When distinguished lawyers are reduced to that sort of argument to prove that it is possible to get not from the East End of London but from the West End of London to Stansted in 70 minutes, one realises just how weak their case must be. At one point, one of the road experts, when asked what would happen if there was a major traffic jam at the end of the motorway, said that people would have to go by rail. What will happen if they are unable to do so? This shows up the first major defect in this proposal. In any case, what has happened to the White Paper? That document stated that the rail connection had to be with Victoria. The President of the Board of Trade did not even mention Victoria today. His connection appears to be with Liverpool Street or King's Cross.

Mr. Jay: If the hon. Gentleman will look at the relevant sentence in the White Paper he will see that the journey to King's Cross would take less than an hour.

Mr. Kirk: The right hon. Gentleman was referring to Liverpool Street. When considering the journey from Stansted to Liverpool Street, I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman looks at the timetable. It takes 45 minutes. The whole of the inter-departmental committee's deliberations, and the inquiry, was concerned with this point to such an extent that Sir Milner Holland said that his case rested on it. The case was that access would be to London's West End and not to the City. Indeed, people wanting to go in the area of Grosvenor Square would not be able to do the first bit of the journey by car in under about half an hour.[HON. MEMBERS: "Longer."] I agree


with my hon. Friends that it would probably take a good deal longer, but I am being generous.
Equally, the White Paper has apparently made a £15 million mistake in the costings. British Rail have discovered that it will not cost the amount stated in the White Paper to get to Sheppey. Apparently all the costs in the White Paper must be changed because the President of the Board of Trade has today given a totally different estimate from the one in his document. The White Paper estimated that it would cost £45 million to get to Stansted. That has gone up to £55 million. Meanwhile, the White Paper estimate of £132 million for Sheppey has gone down to £120 million.

Mr. Jay: The hon. Gentleman is being perverse about this. I said that if one added £8 million to £47 million, one got the figure of £55 million. The White Paper referred to the fact that the removal of Wethersfield airfield would be additional. If the hon. Gentleman had been listening to what I said he would agree that I was consistent in my remarks.

Mr. Kirk: I was certainly listening. Reference has been made to Weathers-field as if there were some doubt about whether it should be replaced. There was never any doubt mentioned at the inquiry or in the White Paper. The need to remove Wethersfield was stated as a necessity. The figure for doing that could have been put in in the first place, and that would have saved a lot of difficulty. I do not accept £8 million as a reasonable figure, although it was given at the inquiry, and I have mentioned it merely to be charitable.
Gradually the figures are coming closer together. The right hon. Gentleman may have noticed some costings arrived at by other experts—there is no reason to think why they should not be as good as the right hon. Gentleman's—and stated in the Evening Standard. Those costings were precisely the other way round compared with the right hon. Gentleman's costings. "You pay your money and take your choice", is a reasonable adage in this connection.
Let us consider the question of noise, a subject on which the inspector also found against the Government. This afternoon the right hon. Gentleman initi-

ated a new theory on noise which does not come within the White Paper. He said that there are two ways by which we must measure noise. The first is in the area immediately around—the generally accepted method—and in this case it man's own experts at the inquiry insisted is the area which the right hon. Gentle-was the area within 45 n.n.i., noise and number index, plus a mile around the edge for safety.
The right hon. Gentleman referred, secondly, to people living 10 to 12 miles away, as though this were a radial manner of judging noise. But sound does not move in this type of radial way, particularly when we are concerned with airports. When on television last week—and a most pleasant experience it was—the right hon. Gentleman said, in effect, "You should not try to tell that to people who live in Putney, Richmond and Kew, because they live 10 to 12 miles away; and would you say there is any noise?" However, the people who live there are already within the 45 n.n.i. contour.
The final report of the Wilson Committee contains a map projecting noise contours up to 1970. It shows that the 45 n.n.i. contour has already reached Richmond and that it will have reached those other areas by 1970. The fact that people live 10, 12 or 50 miles away from an airport is really irrelevant, since the important factor is the n.n.i. noise contour.
A small body of which I have the privilege to be chairman issued a document overnight. They also sent out some noise maps which show clearly the effect of the 45 n.n.i. contour on Stansted and Sheppey. Perhaps I should mention that the only reason why I have taken Sheppey for this example is because the White Paper refers to Sheppey. Comparisons must be made, and it is only fair that we should make the Sheppey comparison. A look at that map makes it plain that the 45 n.n.i. goes nowhere near a built-up area except Eastchurch Prison, and one cannot therefore, put that against Bishop's Stortford. Here again we have had a complete change of front.
Then there were the arguments which, to the inspector, were important and which, I believe, are generally accepted by the Government as being true. The


first is the change of character of the neighbourhood and the second is the loss of valuable agricultural land. The comparison of agricultural land between Foulness and Sheppey that the right hon. Gentleman made is not quite right in that the quality of the land, according to the records, is exactly the same. It is fair to say that the land is Stansted and Foulness is no better or worse than that in Sheppey. However, 60 per cent. of the Foulness land is under military occupation and cannot be worked, anyway.
The inspector's report must have been received with some dismay by the Government, and this may account for the curious fact that neither in the right hon. Gentleman's statement of 12th May, nor in the White Paper, nor in the President's speech today has the right hon. Gentleman or anyone else on behalf of the Government rendered a word of thanks to the inspector for the work he did. Usually on such an occasion there is a ritual of tribute being paid to the gentleman in question. On this occasion no word of thanks has been said by anybody to him. Instead, the Government went ahead, sat on the White Paper for 12 months and set up a secret inquiry.
Today we are given the first hint of who carried out that secret inquiry. We are not actually told the name of the persons, although I wrote a letter to the right hon. Gentleman a month ago on this very topic; but I got no reply. We are told that this individual was the same person as one of the individuals who carried out the earlier inquiry. I think I know who it is and I think the right hon. Gentleman knows how his evidence was received by the inspector. This is on the assumption that it is the same man.
The President said that there had been wide ranging consultation. There are one or two matters about which they should have consulted before Stansted was fixed. For example, they should have considered the basic services and the question of water. Even more fundamentally, they should have gone into the question of sewage. I have with me a letter written by the League Conservancy Catchment Board, a Ministry of Housing and Local Government body, written on 16th June of this year referring to earlier correspondence with the Government, at the end of 1965. The letter points out that there

would be great difficulty if the airport was established at present and suggests that there should not be a final decision on the expansion of the airport on the lines proposed by the Ministry of Aviation
… unless your Ministry is satisfied that feasible solutions to the problems that would arise … as a result of the proposed airport development … could be evolved
In a letter dated 3rd December, 1965, the Ministry gave an assurance that the matter referred to in its earlier letter, of 18th November, 1965, would not be overlooked.
But no further communication was received from the Ministry either in reply to my letter of 15th December, 1965, or prior to or following the Government's decision that the third London Airport should be sited at Stansted.
So, although these vital questions were not to be overlooked, it was found impossible to carry out any consultation with the catchment area on water and sewerage—two absolutely vital matters on which those authorities should have been consulted before any decision was taken.
The regional planning council was not consulted. The right hon. Gentleman said that that was because of the Chalkpit rules, but if he stuck so rigidly to the Chalkpit rules in that case why did he not stick to them all the way through? Why did he not recall the inquiry and give notice to the objectors that further evidence was being called? None of this was done there, but in the one case where the Minister is vulnerable the Chalkpit rules are sacrosanct. The Ministry of Transport stated in The Times a few days after the right hon. Gentleman's statement on 12th May that it had not been effectively consulted—and clearly British Rail was not consulted because the Government's costings of the railway line were all wrong.
I maintain that there is need for a new inquiry, at least at Stansted, but that all these facts make all the more important the need for a wider general inquiry into the whole subject. This is no new idea. I have been asking for it ever since I became involved in the matter. I can remember conversations I have had on it with the then Minister of Aviation, and I now discover to my surprise that I had a very distinguished predecessor in asking for it. On 10th August, 1964, the then Leader of the Opposition, the present Prime Minister,


wrote to a constituent of mine a letter of which I have now been given a copy. It reads:
With regard to Stansted Airport, the Labour Party is committed to a complete review of the internal transport system of the country, and, with this in mind, has already stated that it would stop further railway closures pending such review.
The question of air travel, including the siting of airports, clearly comes within the scope of our investigations and would suspend the decision to develop Stansted until our planning is completed.
We do not believe that the Government"—
that is, the Conservative Government—
has paid sufficient attention to such important issues as the ever increasing noise factor, and we would take this into account.
We are also aware of the problems of travel between the centre of our cities and our airports, and are studying the possibilities of new and faster forms of travel. It may well be that this could enable the siting of new airports at greater distances from residential areas, while still ensuring faster transport arrangements.
With due regard to the problems voiced by those living in the proximity of Stansted we would give priority to an investigation of the matter.

Mr. Jay: The hon. Gentleman ought to add that three years have passed since then, and that two further inquiries have been held.

Mr. Kirk: But what the Prime Minister was there talking about was a general inquiry; not a specific inquiry, but a general inquiry into all our transport problems—precisely what I have been asking for for two years and what we on this side are asking for today. The Prime Minister is absolutely right in this respect. His logic cannot be faulted, and the only pity is that it has not been carried out.
If I wanted a stronger argument in favour of a general inquiry, the House had it from the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon. What did he do? He took site by site in watertight compartments, examined them all in their watertight compartments, and turned them down. He made no attempt at a general review. Each individual case was examined under the microscope, each little flaw was shown up—except, of course, in the case of Stansted, where the advantages were loudly proclaimed. The right hon. Gentleman satisfied himself that he had produced incontrovertible

proof that he had carried out a wide-ranging inquiry.
The one thing the Government have always prayed in aid is the timing. They say that the matter is so urgent that it cannot wait. I might say that this is one of the arguments they promised would never be used. It was promised by the right hon. Gentleman the former Minister of Aviation and I do not think he has ever denied it. The quotation is fairly well known that the Government would never plead urgency in aid of Stansted, but they do plead it in the White Paper.
What is the timing here? The right hon. Gentleman himself has confirmed this afternoon, on a matter of some importance, that a second runway will be built at Gatwick. In the document I sent out last night, there is an appendix compiled by Mr. Andrew Sharman, an associate partner in the firm of Sir William Halcrow & Partners. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will accept his credentials. In Table 1 in page 17 we find revised estimates taken from the figures in the Government's White Paper, of the saturation point of Gatwick plus Heathrow. It gives an S.B.R. of 109, as compared with 104 in the report of the inter-departmental committee. If it is now confirmed that a second runway at Gatwick is to be built it appears from incontrovertible evidence, unless the Minister is intending to deny the figure, that the saturation point Gatwick plus Heathrow will not be reached until 1977. In any case it is clear that work at the new runway at Stansted will not begin until 1974, and granted that we have planned the terminal buildings—is the right hon. Gentleman denying that work will not begin until 1974?

Mr. Jay: What is intended is to have the additional capacity ready in 1974, as I said.

Mr. Kirk: That totally conflicts with what Mr. Masefield said in the television programme in which we appeared together. The right hon. Gentleman will recall this, because he was there. I asked Mr. Masefield:
… at what date do you propose to start work on the second runway?
That was granted that one already existed:
Masefield: About '74.


Either the right hon. Gentleman is right or Mr. Masefield is right, but I wish they would get together to decide who is right. Even on Mr. Masefield's date of 1974, we have seven years, and although it is perfectly true that one has to plan the terminal buildings, and so on, the pace of civil aviation today must have slowed up very considerably if it takes seven years to do all the preliminary work before starting. In a Report of the Estimates Committee in 1960 it will be found that when the people giving evidence for the Ministry of Aviation were asked:
How long will it take you to create another London airport?
they replied that it took five years in the Gatwick case and that they saw no reason why it should take any longer—five years—from the first proposal and White Paper, through the inquiries and the preliminary planning. If it took five years in the 'fifties, why, with, presumably, increased technological work, must it take seven years before we can even start work on the runway? And this does not mean having the airport running on stream.
I hope that I have not spoken for too long, but the House will understand that this is a matter of some importance to my constituency. I hope that I have said enough to show that there is a strong case, certainly, for reconsidering Stansted, but that, in itself, is a small point. There is an even stronger case for a general public review, either by a Royal Commission or a technical committee, and it will be possible for such a review to take place within the time scale.
I would say to both right hon. Gentlemen, before they leave, that I will give an undertaking that if this review takes place and it is decided that Stansted is the right place, I will use all the influence I have to ensure that the decision is accepted. The same undertaking has been given by the leaders of the protest movement; there will be no further delay. In that case, what has the right hon. Gentleman to lose? But if he goes on, I must tell him, that although he will win his majority vote tonight it will be totally meaningless, because the Whips are on, and it will not be the end of the story. We shall go on opposing as long as there is a chance to obstruct or oppose this plan. We shall do so because we have

been imposed upon in a way that is a disgrace to any normal democratic procedure. Do not let the right hon. Gentleman imagine that because he gets his automatic majority tonight his troubles are over—they will only just have begun.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Stan Newens: I accept that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has made a strong case for a third London Airport. I accept that on the basis of prospective growth of passenger and freight traffic there is a need for a third airport, or additional airport facilities, in the London area, but this evening I want to follow the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk) by putting forward some of the arguments why I think the case has certainly not been made for siting the third airport at Stansted.
My right hon. Friend suggested that there was considerable support in the locality for establishing the airport there. Today I have had 30 telegrams. During the period I have been dealing with this matter, I have had several hundred letters and only a very small number have supported the idea of siting London's third airport at Stansted. This is not at all a party question. I have received letters from Conservatives, Liberals, Labour Party members and people who are independent. The Eastern Regional Conference of the Labour Party recently went on record by a substantial majority against siting the third airport at Stansted. I have even received a communication from the South-Essex District of the Communist Party opposing this decision. So I can assure the House that there is a great degree of unanimity in this opposition.
My arguments are certainly not based only on local objections. The House has to face the fact that we are taking one of the biggest national planning decisions of this decade. An airport is not merely a place used by air traffic. It is an important growth point, as we have seen in the case of Heathrow. It is absolutely vital that we should take a decision to site the new London Airport anywhere only after taking all the facts into consideration, but as yet this has not been done.
The Labour Party came to power as a party dedicated to planning. If we go ahead now and site the third London


airport at Stansted, it will be the negation of all those things we said in favour of the idea of planning. The case that has been made almost entirely on air traffic grounds by air traffic experts. The Regional Inter-Departmental Committee set up by the previous Government consisted of 16 members, 14 of whom were air traffic or aviation experts. Only one was from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and one from the Ministry of Transport.
The public inquiry came out wholeheartedly against the case made on all counts except that based on aviation considerations. The British Airports Authority has run a Press campaign on this matter. An article in the Sunday Telegraph of 4th June said:
To persuade the Labour Government of their case the British Airports Authority could hardly have chosen a more suitable public relations company. It is the public relations subsidiary of the London Press Exchange where the account is handled by Mr. Terry Burke and Mr. Michael Pendreth. Mr. Burke worked for the Labour Party for two years. Mr. Pendreth was also employed there and accompanied Mr. Wilson during the General Election in 1964
When we are talking about public relations, please do not forget that the British Airports Authority has played its part in this respect.
Whatever has been said on air traffic grounds has in no way been substantiated in other respects. The case for siting a new growth point at Stansted has not been made out. Some hon. Members have referred to the fact that the appropriate regional planning council, which the Labour Government set up, was not consulted. Neither was the Standing Conference on London Regional Planning nor the Town and Country Planning Association. It is rumoured that at the public inquiry the Government had to search around seriously to try to get a reputable town and country planning expert to appear. I do not think that they were eventually successful.
I know Essex very well. All the available open land there is being developed very rapidly indeed. A considerable number of sites in Essex have been taken by the G.L.C. since the war. Another is to be established at Waltham Abbey and there will be considerable expansion of Harlow New Town. The M11 will take up a large strip of land

in West Essex. The former air station at North Weald is to become an Army station. Commuter expansion is taking place in the area.
If, in addition, we site the third London airport there, inevitably there will be a very considerable further increase in the population of Essex which will make absolute nonsense of all that was said about the need for avoiding the South-East drift. The South-East Study referred to a new town of 100,000 being required if Stansted were to be the site of the third airport. Reference has been made to the question of water supplies. In all south-east England, Essex has more difficulty over water supplies than any other county.
Let us look at the question of transport and travelling. I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is no longer in the Chamber. The figures he quoted relate to cloud cuckooland. I travel from a place a mile south of Stansted regularly to Westminster by road. Except at times right away from peak hours, it is quite impossible to achieve the times originally set out and still quoted by people when talking about access between Stansted and central London. North-east London is an extremely congested area already. Because of geographical factors, particularly because the River Lea ran down to the Thames, there are only a number of crossings over the Thames and a large number of bottlenecks are caused, some of which are in my constituency. These will have to be contended with if traffic is to fan out from the eventual end of the M11, which as yet has reached only to Woodford.
These facts have not been taken properly into account and definitely the costs have not been included in the assessments which have been made. The costs set out in the White Paper are primitive in the extreme. There has been no effective cost-benefit study. All the costs which are listed are highly selective. No cost is included for the construction of new roads in north-east London. No cost is stated for replacing and soundproofing schools, which will run into millions of pounds. I will not argue about the figure, but it will add considerably to those which have already been given. No cost is included for protecting homes against noise.
I must make it clear that I am not advocating Sheppey as an alternative. A different approach has been adopted in relation to the cost of developing Sheppey. The figure of £40 million for the rail link has been over-estimated. The report in The Times on Monday made this clear. The additional construction costs referred to of building an airport on low lying land, estimated at £15 million, are considered by experts to be much exaggerated.
In all these costs, no estimate has been made of the economic gains which would arise from closing down other facilities. If we could relieve Heathrow and surrounding areas of part of the burden, many of those living in the vicinity of Heathrow would be delighted. If Southend Airport or Shoeburyness Firing Range were closed, the land would be available for other purposes. Why has the economic benefit of doing these things not been included in any assessment which has been made? The costing of this exercise is absolutely primitive.
I am deeply concerned at the alarming way in which the advocates of Stansted have shifted their ground. It seems to be the pattern, first to deny awkward facts as long as possible, then to try to ignore them, and subsequently to change ground. Today my right hon. Friend said that the cost of Stansted has already been increased by £8 million as a result of including the closure of Wethersfield. Up to the present time the advocates of Stansted have been saying that they did not know that it would be necessary to close Wethersfield. At one time the figure was increased by £3 million. Today it has been increased by £8 million. Most hon. Members will realise how quickly in practice, on all sorts of issues, particularly on matters of air traffic, costs escalate.
On the traffic question, central London and Grosvenor Square have been mentioned. Now we are talking about the railway link with Liverpool Street or King's Cross. This is another example of how people are shifting their ground.
The noise question particularly illustrates my contention that people are shifting their ground. Both in his broadcast and today, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade said

that the noise situation at Sheppey would be worse than that at Stansted. That may or may not be true. Whether it is or not, it contradicts the White Paper, which is supposed to set out the facts. Paragraph 48 on page 15 of the White Paper, speaking of Sheppey, says:
The noise problem would be relatively small.
Paragraph 63 on page 18 is even clearer:
It is true that the noise problem at Stansted would be rather worse than at Sheppey".
My right hon. Friend has completely denied those statements in the White Paper, a White Paper which he presented to Parliament. Further, paragraph 15 of Appendix 3, which appears on page 30, says that the relative extent of the noise nuisance would be four times as great at Stansted as at Sheppey.
My right hon. Friend has changed the basis of his arguments about the question of determining noise and talks about all those people who live within 10 or 12 miles of the airport. In doing this, he is renouncing the stand which was taken by the Ministry of Aviation witness, Mr. Sawyer, at the public inquiry, because it was shown clearly—the contour maps exist; I have copies of them and could supply them—that the agreed area was to be an area bounded by a line one mile outside the 45 NNI contour. The agreed maps of Sheppey show the Medway towns outside the area bounded by a line one mile outside the 45 NNI contour. Once again, the question of noise shows that the advocates of Stansted have changed their stand.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: What my hon. Friend is saying is very interesting and cogent. I had thought that he would complete the sentence he partially quoted from paragraph 63 on page 18. Perhaps he would permit me to complete it for him:
… the number of people around Stansted subjected to very high noise exposure would be only one twentieth of the number around Heathrow".

Mr. Newens: I agree with that point. I think that the position around Heathrow is terrible. We should take great pains to ensure that we do not create a problem at Stansted where it does not exist now.

Mr. Rankin: In view of the interruption by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins), could my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Newens) explain why the number of houses at Heathrow and the number of people there have gone on increasing, despise the effect of noise?

Mr. Newens: I can explain it easily—because people must go where there is work. The creation of a growth point attracts people to that area. We should realise what is likely to happen in the Stansted area. People are often attracted to live and work in places which they would not choose otherwise.
I do not consider that the noise nuisance factor is the be all and end all. I would not say on that basis only that the airport should not go to Stansted. However, as there is such a great need for people to shift their ground when arguing about noise, and as the facts are shown to be so unsubstantial, how can we accept the rest of the facts, which have not been disclosed, on which these decisions have been taken? The decisions have been taken behind closed doors. There is need for a further inquiry by an appropriate body, because justice must not only be done, if it is being done; it must also be seen to be done. At present any reasonable observer would take the view that decisions are being taken on botched-up evidence.
The hon. Member for Saffron Walden has already discussed the question of the time available. I maintain that there is time for a further assessment. Such an assessment is essential because the present decision has been made entirely without any basis of sound planning policy. In this connection, right hon. and hon. Members opposite, as the previous Government, must take full blame. They made a start in the matter. I had it in mind to quote the statements made at the time by Mr. Julian Amery. The previous Government were moving towards this decision, and it would be hypocritical for the Opposition now to attack the present Government for taking a decision which they would have made. But it would be most regrettable if any of us were to try to make party political capital out of this issue. When all is said and done, there is a strong case for avoiding being compelled to take the sort of decision which the previous Gov-

ernment would have taken, on grounds which are no better established now than they were then. Ordinary people in the area of Stansted are disgusted not so much at the decision to put the airport there but at the way it was reached behind closed doors. It is high time that all the factors were fully considered.
There has been another influence on this decision, that is, the military side of it. I have always been most concerned about the economic effects of military commitments east of Suez. Now, when I go into the question of Stansted, I find that I have to be concerned about the economic effects of military commitments east of Stratford-on-Avon. There would be a strong case for putting the airport in one of a number of other places if the military authorities had not expressed themselves strongly against it. We have been told about Silverstone. That is ruled out because of military considerations, on account of the military airfield. In Bedford, the question of the military air base comes in. In Padworth, in another direction, questions of military air space come in. At Foulness and Sheppey, there is the question of the Shoeburyness firing range and certain other unmentionable activities. I have not been issued with a D Notice, but I shall not trespass on that ground tonight. Everyone knows that serious military considerations have prevented us from giving these other sites the full consideration which they should have.
In my view, by a process of elimination, the military authorities have, virtually, whittled down the effective choice to Stansted. The time has come when the people of this country, even in their own country, must choose whether they wish to pay the price of all these military commitments. It is taking things a very long way to suggest that, because we are linked with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and certain agreements have been entered into for the use of air space in this country, areas vital for our economic development are to be ruled out on military grounds.
In view of all the facts, it is nonsense to suggest, as the Government's Amendment does, that all aspects have been taken into account. A very effective public relations job was to be mounted to suggest just this, but that public relations job


has come unstuck because the so-called facts have been questioned and been shown to be either false or quite unsubstantiated. I tell the Government frankly that this sort of thing just will not do. It is not planning. It is merely taking over a policy which we inherited, and which, with all respect, was, to a large extent, hammered out by civil servants and experts without proper consideration of all the factors which this Government promised to take into account when working out our economic policies.
To my mind, it will be most unfortunate if we in the Labour Party are obliged to receive brickbats for doing that sort of thing. It is abhorrent to me, as a Socialist, to carry on in that way. For these reasons, I shall be unable to support the Government in the Lobby tonight. I hope that my right hon. Friends will go into the question again and change their minds before laying the Order before the House. They have a great deal to gain by so doing. If we proceed with Stansted in the way now set, and the decision proves to be a mistake, it will always be hung round the neck of the Labour Party. A review could only strengthen the Government's case if it eventually brought forward further facts to substantiate the choice of Stansted.
In my view, there are strong arguments for having the site completely away from the South-East, somewhere in the Midlands or between London and the Midlands. But, if we are to have it in the South-East, it should at least be considered for the coast. In any event, it must have far more consideration than has been given to it so far.
I appeal to my right hon. Friends not to write off my protest as one coming from only a few people, not to imagine that I have in some way been "conned" by a few country landowners in the area. That is just not on. The Harlow Trades Council may have come out in favour of the Government's decision, but the Harlow Urban District Council has come out completely against it. At a meeting called by the urban district council which between 300 and 500 people attended, all except 10 voted to oppose the decision to go ahead at Stansted.
I am not for a moment arguing that some other site ought to be taken. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for

Faversham (Mr. Boston) that I am not arguing that the airport should go to Sheppey. What I say is that there should be a review of the whole issue once again in order to work out a properly planned policy. It is in this frame of mind that I appeal to my right hon. Friends to think again.

7.28 p.m.

Mr. Peter Bessell: In opening the debate, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) rightly said that the main object of our discussion would be Stansted and the location of a third London airport. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman's speech was very fair. It was unemotional. It was not partisan. He attempted to deal with this immense problem in an objective manner. As he said, this is essentially a non-party issue. I shall try to approach it in a equally unbiased fashion.
I am particularly sorry to cross swords with the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, partly because of my considerable respect for him and my appreciation of the splendid work which he is doing in his high office, but, more than that, because in listening to his speech today I felt myself to be somewhat like King Agrippa before Paul, and on the point of saying to him, "Almost thou persuadest me." But, against that, I am bound to take notice of the overwhelming public objection which has been raised to the proposal to locate the third London airport at Stansted.
I am the Liberal Party spokesman on transport matters. During the 2½ years that I have held that post, I have never received anything approaching the amount of correspondence which has reached me in the past few weeks on the issue of Stansted. I have brought into the Chamber only a very small number of the maps, papers, letters and newspaper articles which have been drawn to my attention on the issue. I have not had a single letter or one expression of support for the proposal. Among the objections I have received have been some from my own constituents. By no stretch of the imagination can it be said that Stansted Airport affects the people of southeast Cornwall.
It is a remarkable fact that in all the speeches we have heard today there has


not been one single word in support of the contentions of the President of the Board of Trade. Every speech has been in opposition. The overwhelming volume of public opinion is opposed to the proposal, and the Press and the vast majority of the technicians who have written or spoken on the subject have joined in opposing it.

Mr. Rankin: The hon. Gentleman says that so far nothing has been said in support of the Government position. But does he not realise that every speech that has been delivered so far has been animated by one thing and one thing only—selfinterest?

Mr. Bessell: That is a particularly unworthy remark. I have a high regard for the hon. Gentleman but to suggest that his hon. Friend who spoke a moment ago, the hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Newens), was activated by nothing but self-interest, when I am confident that he was speaking in the interests of his constituents, is a most unworthy statement.

Mr. Rankin: I have heard every speech, and the theme has been, "Don't put this airport at Stansted".

Mr. Bessell: That has been the theme, but I do not think that all hon. Members who spoke in that way have been motivated by selfishness.
I return to my point that the Government have a duty to take heed of the overwhelming volume of public opinion which has been mounted against their proposal. I recognise the very great difficulty with which the right hon. Gentleman is confronted. First, there must be a plan for a third airport; I accept that without question. I am glad that he has thought in terms of a location fairly far removed from Gatwick and Heathrow. We all know the great error made, for example, in planning New York's airports, where there are the J. F. Kennedy International Airport, La Guardia and Newark in close proximity to one another. I believe that it is now accepted that on average there are five near misses a day in the New York area. That is an indication of the great dangers of planning airports very close to each other.
There is also the anxiety which has been expressed by airline pilots. Against those two points we have the excellent

record of safety which has been achieved at Heathrow and Gatwick and which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is anxious to preserve in the future. I am satisfied that he has taken account of this in his calculations. I recognise the limitation imposed on him in choice of locations because, as he said in his speech, this is a very crowded little island and the airlanes are certainly in danger of being overworked. There is also the problem of access to London, which the right hon. Gentleman must take into account in his calculations.
There have been many suggestions that it would be possible to locate a new airport at a considerable distance from London and link it to London by a fast rail service, or even a monorail service. That would present a problem of inconvenience to passengers, but the suggestions should be examined carefully and that would happen if the terms of the Opposition Motion were accepted by the Government. Secondly, there is the suggestion that the alternative locations at roughly the same distance from London as Stansted should be more carefully examined than they have been so far, and this too will occur if the Motion is acted upon.
Then, too, there is the question of long-term planning of airports throughout the country. In the context of London, Manchester and Prestwick—the three main air terminals in this country—we must consider the development areas and the necessity for providing airports in them. There is, for example, the everlasting problem of whether there shall be an airport at Plymouth or whether we shall have a small airport at Newquay and another small one at Exeter. This matter has been endlessly debated, but it could be quickly resolved and action could replace discussion if the Government accepted the terms of the Motion.
Finally, I return to my first point. What concerns me above all about the decision is that the Government are riding roughshod over the clearly-stated and unequivocal opposition of the vast majority of people concerned, not only the majority of people concerned in the area but the majority throughout the country who have given expression to opinion.
People today are becoming more and more critical of the dictatorial powers of the Executive and the abuse of those


powers. If there is one political issue which I believe concerns people above all others at the moment it is that abuse of power. For the sake of sensible long-term airport planning, for the sake of air safety, and for the sake of public convenience, the Motion should not be rejected. There is nothing wrong in accepting the suggestion that there should be an independent inquiry into the whole problem of Britain's airports. It is long overdue, and within that context Stansted would be reconsidered.
The basic principles of democratic Government, as the right hon. Gentleman well recognises, demand that the Executive should take proper notice of the wishes of the people. For that reason, if for no other, I hope that there will be a careful reappraisal of the proposal, which has attracted so much opposition and which I believe must, therefore, be basically wrong.

7.38 p.m.

Mr. Terence Boston: Unlike the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) I have a fairly considerable constituency interest in the debate. But first I wish to say a few words about the Opposition's attitude over the past two weeks. On 14th June 234 Members signed a Motion calling on the Government to reconsider their decision. The next day came the statement that the Leader of the Opposition and the Shadow Cabinet had decided to call on the Government to reconsider their decision. What a splendidly courageous decision by the Leader of the Opposition and the Shadow Cabinet that was! As soon as they saw that more than 200 Members had signed that Motion, the Tory leader decided to weigh in too. He waited to see which way the bandwagon would roll and then bounded on to it. What a magnificent sight that presented—the leader of a mighty army, Sir Super MacHeath, riding like a knight in full shining armour behind 250 people who did not even know that he was with them and, in view of his own Government's attitude, were probably convinced that he was against them.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Is the hon. Gentleman making a positive virtue of the fact that his leaders pay no attention whatever to their followers?

Mr. Boston: I recognise that it is customary on the other side of the House to attack the Government, but it is not very much liked when the Opposition are attacked. Hon. Members should not be as thin-skinned as that. The Leader of the Opposition has caused very real resentment by attempting to cash in in this way for party purposes.
I want to say a word or two in the Sheppey versus Stansted part of the debate and refer in particular to the meeting on last Tuesday week in the Palace of Westminster at which the chairman was the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk). I am sorry that the hon. Member is not here at the moment, because I am going to pay him a compliment and thank him for having the fairness at that meeting to call me first for questions, which I thought was very kind.
It was said by the chairman at the outset that the anti-Stansted lobby was not putting forward any particular place as an alternative site. But I was very surprised to see that, by sheer coincidence, there happened to be behind the platform two maps on the wall, one of Stansted and the other—by sheer coincidence, no doubt—of Sheppey. In my mail this morning, when I received a copy of the anti-Stansted lobby's working party's report, I also received the selfsame two maps. It is fair to say that more than one of the leading experts at the meeting admitted in so many words that it was the Isle of Sheppey that they had in mind, and a number of them implied this in their answers to questions. So I do not think there is any doubt that Sheppey is regarded as the alternative by the Stansted people.
I shall seek to show, first, that the most frequently suggested alternative to Stansted is not as straightforward as all that and, secondly, that any land-based site that one cares to think of would be open to very similar objections. I do not think that any of us in this debate, whatever position we take, could be accused of hypocrisy if we said that we have the greatest of sympathy for anybody who lives near an airport from the noise point of view. Anybody with the slightest amount of humanity would take that view.
I want also to refer to the need for an airport and to the question of urgency and speed. My right hon. Friend has


done a great deal to convince the House on this score. I should also like to refer to the attractions which I find for an offshore site. There is no doubt that until recently the Government's case has been going by default, and so has the anti-Sheppey case. Therefore, I make no excuses for being to some extent parochial in this and stating the case for the Isle of Sheppey. I shall try not to overstate it, but in the circumstances I do not think that anybody would complain if I did not understate it, either.
I feel that there has been a conspiracy of silence in some quarters on anything but the case against Stansted itself. Let us look at the Isle of Sheppey and the surrounding area, which has in a good many quarters been almost written off as of no significance whatsoever in terms of the people affected. One would imagine that it was a derelict, unpopulated area. I was disturbed to see some of the distorted pictures which have appeared in certain sections of the Press.
What is this area that is being written off in this way? The island has a permanent population of more than 28,000, and in the summer months the holiday population brings it to 57,800, and I shall say a word about that in a minute. Farmland has been referred to. The article in the Sunday Times this week made the point that the development of an airport in that area would be bound to spill over to some extent on to what is referred to as "the mainland", an area of the highest grade horticultural land in the country. This afternoon my right hon. Friend went into detail on some of the comparative figures for the sites, and I shall not duplicate what has been said.
Who are the people who are being written off in this way in some quarters? If a certain amount of emotion is capable of being whipped up for Stansted, equally it is possible for a considerable amount of emotion to be whipped up in the case of Sheppey or any other area. I have referred to the holidaymakers on the island—30,000 at any one time, giving a total island population in the summer of 57,800. These are people who come down from London for a comparatively inexpensive holiday. Even assuming that everybody who comes down there comes for two weeks—that is, taking the turnover over the whole season—it amounts to 300,000 people. The fact is that most of

them do not come for two weeks. The most they can afford is a week or, in a great many cases, a weekend or a day. So the actual turnover here—like the hon. Member for Saffron Walden earlier, I am being generous, and this is a conservative turnover figure—is above 300,000. Many of these are people with families of two, three or four young children.
I should be the first to admit—I am taking a risk in saying this—that Leysdown, the main holiday centre, is not as intrinsically beautiful as Thaxted. But the error made by some people in comparisons of this sort is in forgetting that amenity means more than just one thing. It means more than beauty. It means holiday and leisure facilities. Leisure facilities are something that we shall be in greater need of, not less, in the years to come, So this area is one of the main lungs of London.
The House should face the fact that if we wipe out the chalets now housing 30,000 people, we shall have to find somewhere else to put them. I should like to know who would be the first to suggest a place in the south-east of England, within easy reach of London, a place on the coast, which is ready, willing and enthusiastic to provide a site for chalets, bungalows and caravans capable of housing 30,000 people at any one time. That is what we shall have to do—we must face this fact—unless we intend writing off these people's holiday and leisure facilities altogether.
The people of Sheppey may not be able to fork out such large sums as those in other parts of the country, but I assure the House and my right hon. Friend that the protests will be loud and long if there is a further threat to this or, I take it, any other area, even if they are not in my area couched in quite such elegant phrases as have been used in some other places. The article in the Sunday Times—I have only one complaint about it—said that there was no grass roots appeal in the Government's case. The fact is that, on the whole, people do not tend to protest when things are done that they approve of—or, to put it another way, they do not tend to protest when things are not being done which they disapprove of.
But I assure the House that there is a vast reservoir of latent support for the


Government in places which, once the final moves are made, are no longer threatened in this way. There is another view of Stansted which has already been referred to. Amongst the letters on this subject that I have received is one from a Mr. Victor Curtis, on behalf of the Stansted Area Progress Association, who confirms the point made by my right hon. Friend when he says:
We … are battling for our future, and have in the last two weeks"—
this was written a week ago—
collected over 4,000 signatures in favour of the Government's decision. This is just locally, and not as our opponents are doing on a nationwide scale. We have the backing of the Harlow Trades Union Council, with a membership of 8,000.
These are people who want the facilities at Stansted. I do not make too much of the point but it exists.
I want to mention briefly the whole question of the time for consideration of other sites. The House should face the fact that delaying tactics which are good for one area are equally good for another. Like others, I have been given assurances that full opportunities would be given to people in my area or any other to present their case, just as the opportunity has been given to people in the Stansted area.
It has been suggested that a Royal Commission or some other body should be appointed. It may sound a good idea on the face of it but who would be appointed? To whom would the Royal Commission be responsible? Where would Parliament come in? Where would the Government come in? Are we to have government by Royal Commission, abdicate our responsibilities and hand over to another body not answerable to Parliament the duty of dealing with public expenditure amounting to £47 million or £55 million or £132 million or whatever the figure happens to be in any future case? What would the situation be if the Royal Commission were to recommend another site?

Mr. John H. Osborn: Does the hon. Gentleman think that Parliament will have any control over this decision if the Government Amendment is passed tonight?

Mr. Boston: I am glad to see that the hon. Gentleman has just played a part

as a Member of this House in expressing an opinion on this subject which the House is dealing with today.
What would be the position if the Royal Commission were to recommend another site? Would the people there have the same chance? How long would all this procedure take? It has been suggested that the Royal Commission would, on the most optimistic estimate, report within a year. I have yet to see many Royal Commissions conducting their business quite as quickly as that. A more realistic figure would be two years and that is being fairly optimistic.
What would happen after that? We would need three months more for Ministers to consider the report in their Departments. We should then need to set up an inquiry at the place in question. Again, on the most generous basis, the smallest possible amount of time for preparation would mean a further two months before the inquiry could start and it would sit, if we take Stansted as an example, perhaps a couple of months. Then the inspector would have to make his report—an important matter—which would mean another two months delay probably. His report would then be circulated and considered by Ministers and their Departments—say, three months at a conservative estimate. We should then need the tabling of the Order, which would need to be debated.
All this would entail another 12 months and the total would be a minimum of one or two years for the initial inquiry plus another year for all these procedures—and then possibly we should have a writ. I wonder whether this could not go on indefinitely. The fact is that, with any land-based site, there are bound to be similar objections to those at Stansted. This point was accepted at the meeting last Tuesday week. I emphasise that all of us sympathise with the people in the areas around airports.
I want now to refer to the question of an offshore site. This attracted me at first because, obviously, it would save people from noise and would conserve land as well. I think that there is little doubt about the technical feasibility of such a project. Chicago is building its third airport four to five miles out into Lake Michigan. We have done similar operations at staging posts in the Indian


Ocean. When it was first put forward last November in an article in the Consulting Engineer by a civil engineer called Mr. Gerald Bratchell, I was quite attracted to the idea. The basic idea of the scheme was to reclaim land on the Goodwin Sands and build an island four and a half miles by one and a half, with the possibility of extending the airport further by reclaiming a further island later on. I was taken by surprise when this suggestion was first made.

Mr. Onslow: The hon. Gentleman's advocacy of this idea, which has an air of science fiction about it, considerably weakens the force of what he has been saying hitherto. Does he advocate it on the grounds that, as no one lives on the Goodwin Sands, there would be no necessity for a public inquiry or is he seriously advancing economic advantages in this connection?

Mr. Boston: If the hon. Gentleman will be patient I shall deal with the economics of the scheme.
The, basic idea was for a link by either a bridge or a tunnel—probably a tunnel—with the mainland, with fast rail or road connections into London. This scheme would have had advantages in terms of saving people from noise and of saving valuable land. The disadvantage is that the site would cost £50 million more than any other site. I felt that this scheme should be put to the Stansted experts at their meeting last Tuesday week, and their feeling was—and it was something that perhaps they might have seized on as an alternative—that it was not very different from the scheme for using the Foulness mud flats site.
At the anti-Stansted lobby's meeting, the feeling was that the country was not yet economically ready for a scheme of this kind. But for the long-term we must consider, as other countries have begun to consider, sites of this kind and I hope that the Government in their long-term appraisal of national airport siting policy will consider a feasibility study of an offshore site in principle.
What the Government have had to say in the debate, accepting the point about land-based sites, is that a third London airport is needed, and needed quickly, and that there has been a long delay already against growing European com-

petition. Having heard my right hon. Friend putting forward this argument in a most cogent way, I think that there is no doubt that Stansted emerges as the most suitable site—or, rather, the least objectionable site, in the term used by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government. All I have tried to do in this contribution is to show that there is no automatic alternative to the site at Stansted.
Those who protest against one site may find themselves having to protest in due course against another site if they proceed with the idea of a Royal Commission or some other body. People sometimes sign Motions without altogether realising the full implications of what they are signing. Many of us have reasons for being parochial about specific sites, but I feel that we have to accept in this matter the over-riding national interest which has been made out by my right hon. Friend.

8.0 p.m.

Sir Lionel Heald: I am glad to support the Stansted case. I will not take up much of the time of the House as the argument has been put so eloquently by two hon. Members opposite. This is one of those occasions when we can get away from party politics. The hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Boston) thought there were many party points. He appears to think that anybody who signs a Motion does so under a misapprehension. Let me make it clear that I understood the point.

Mr. Boston: Mr. Boston rose—

Sir L. Heald: There are many hon. Members who wish to speak and I will not give way.

Mr. Boston: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Sir L. Heald: No. I wish to be brief. I want to follow the line of thought of the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell). This matter raises fundamental questions. The hon. Member for Faversham did not direct any attention to the Motion before the House. He did not deal with the point which concerns my constituents, who do not live near Stansted but do live very near to Heathrow. That point is whether one of the greatest planning problems of the 20th century, as has been said by some hon. Members


opposite, which was not tackled when Heathrow was dealt with, is to be tackled.
I agree with the hon. Member for Bodmin that we are laying down in this Motion a very important principle. It is an essential part of that principle that it should be a question of national policy which should be considered by an independent committee and not to be decided behind closed doors in Whitehall. The President of the Board of Trade was 100 per cent. in support of the gentlemen in Whitehall knowing best. That is something we are, and should be, concerned about. A matter of national policy of this kind should be something which the country can discuss; not something which is dictatorially decided in Whitehall and we are then told what we have to do. This is one of many examples, and I am delighted to be able to follow the representative of the Liberal Party in making that clear today.
We still have problems at Heathrow. A good practical demonstration of the reality of what is behind the Motion is to be seen when one looks at the report of the inspector and what is contained in the White Paper. We find reference to unsolved problems that still exist at Heathrow. My constituents are concerned with the problem of noise. It is still not clear whether No. 1 runway at Heathrow will be lengthened or whether there will be a proposal for the independent use of parallel runways. We do not know the future of Heathrow.
There is the clearest possible demonstration of the necessity for doing this as part of a big policy. Instead of saying, "We must have a third London Airport; let us consider that in isolation", it is a question which has to be considered in a very much larger context.

Mr. Robert Howarth: Was not the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself a member of the Government which first instituted an inquiry and led them to say that Stansted was the choice for a third London airport?

Sir L. Heald: I ceased to be a Member of the Government in 1954. The hon. Gentleman is a little out of time.
The subject is a big one and I will not go into it in detail, but it is as well to point out that there is a great deal of knowledge and expertise to be found in

other countries. If we had a full-scale inquiry all the best brains in the country could be used. Instead, who are the people who have been responsible for the making of this great decision? We do not know. Someone said he knew who one of them was. He was the gentleman who took part in the previous decision and who also gave evidence at the inquiry with not quite as much success as he might have done.
We have in mind something which will be of importance in 50 or 60 years' time with all the developments in technology and aviation that may take place during that time. That is what we are planning for, but what others in Whitehall have been planning for during this time is a much more temporary present-day position and to that we are to be committed. This is a very serious matter.
Another aspect is the ignoring of the effect of the public inquiry. What has been the value of this public inquiry? According to the President of the Board of Trade, absolutely none at all. He said, "What is the good of having another inquiry? We shall have the same thing again and we shall turn it down again. That is all you need worry about."
We have heard this about public inquiries before. Sir Hartley Shawcross—a personal friend of mine—had this same subject to talk about on one occasion. He unwisely said, "The public inquiry is there for the purpose of allowing people to blow off steam. It does not necessarily affect anything which will happen afterwards, but people will think they have had an opportunity of expressing themselves."
That appears to be the importance which the Government attach to this inquiry. Not a word has been said by the President of the Board of Trade about being anxious to carry out recommendations or anything of that kind. The public inquiry is dead. The report is of no importance. The Government go into a huddle behind closed doors in Whitehall and they come out and tell us, "There it is. That is what you have to do.
That is the kind of thing which we have in mind in this Motion, and it was very striking that the representative of the Liberal Party argued in the most logical way that he was bound to support it. I hope that hon. Members opposite will also support it.

Mr. John Rankin: When I said earlier that certain hon. Members appeared to allow personal self-interest to dominate their attitude in this debate, I was not casting aspersions against any individual. I was referring to the fact that until that time the voice of Stansted had overwhelmed the debate and that this was not a debate about Stansted. It is a debate about a matter affecting the national interest. It is on that basis that I welcome the Government's policy
to plan airport requirements in the light of all relevant factors, including the effect on the local population, the needs of the travelling public, safety, agriculture and the protection of amenity
and which approves the selection of a third London airport on that basis.
From what has been said by many hon. Members, it would appear that time is with us, but my view and the view of many hon. Members who have not yet spoken is that time is against us. When one considers the enormous increase in scheduled flights, in holiday traffic, in all-inclusive tours and in air cargo, and a facet of air travel which has not yet been fully developed, winter holidays, one can appreciate the tremendous pressure on present airport capacity, pressure so great that it makes delay in selecting the third London airport dangerous for the future health of this great industry.
Hon. Members have to realise that 254,000 industrial workers in Britain are interested in our decision tonight, people whose employment and wages depend on the number of aircraft produced and flying. There are 18,000 people in London working at the Ministry who are interested and all over Britain thousands of people are employed in the airports themselves and in the offices of the operating companies. Therefore, to consume time with a further inquiry into matters which most people regard as sufficiently established would be wrong and could be injurious to the industry in which we are all tremendously interested.

Mr. Dobson: Will not my hon. Friend take the opportunity to tell the House that 1,000 flights were turned away from Heathrow this year and that the number will probably treble next year?

Mr. Rankin: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I meant later to refer specifically to Heathrow and Gatwick, but I want first to deal with something which my right hon. Friend mentioned. He said that the Government had now decided to establish a second runway at Gatwick, a decision which I welcome. He went on to tell us that the Government propose to extend the main runway at Heathrow. I felt like interrupting him at that point, but I forbore to do so. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing will say a little more about the extension of the main runway, not that that is not necessary, but because we have to remember that we used to have two sets of parallel runways at Heathrow. The summer before last we had only one. These runways have been eaten up by the extension of necessary facilities for passengers, but now the main runway is to be extended to accommodate the increased number of flights coming to Heathrow in the near future.
What will be done about extending facilities to accommodate that increased number of passengers? How are we to bring them from Heathrow to London? On Friday nights, every plane leaving Heathrow starts 20 minutes late, because buses cannot get to Heathrow from the Cromwell Road Terminal in time to allow the plane to leave on schedule, so great is the congestion on the way out. My hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Newens), who made such a good case for not having the airport at Stansted, said that houses had been built at Heathrow because of the number of workers who had gone to Heathrow to work and who had had to get housing accommodation close by. But he forgot that I travel the route from Cromwell Road to Heathrow twice a week and know that the problem of congestion caused by people who live around Heathrow and work in the centre of London is part and parcel of the reason for the congestion of the roads.
Obviously, if we increase the facilities for handling aircraft, we will have to increase accommodation for passengers, and if there are more passengers, we will slow down still further the horrible crawl from the airport to the terminal. I fly from Glasgow to Heathrow, 400 miles, in 51 minutes and then I take more than an hour to do the remaining 14 miles from London Airport to the centre of


London. My right hon. Friend touched on this problem without fully appreciating its importance when he mentioned his intention of extending the main runway at Heathrow.
I welcome the opposition which has been manifested to the Government's decision. This opposition is nothing new and it happened when under the Coalition Government the airport at Heathrow was suggested. When it was proposed that Heathrow should be developed as an airport, we were told that we could never create an airport in a place which was full of gravel pits and water holes and overwhelmed by floods and hidden by fog. That was the language employed about Heathrow in 1943 and 1944. It was not until the summer of 1957, however, that serious protests began to be made, and they occurred because of the noise and the low flying of aircraft at night. At that time, London Airport was surrounded by three little villages—Feltham, Harlington and Datchet. Naturally, the protests of those little villages cut no ice.
The strange thing is that despite all the protests that were made, and despite the talk about noise and night flying at London Airport, there is now, around it, a new and beautiful town. Houses began to be built and more and more people have gone out there to live. Last year, those who live around London Airport spent £60 million among the shopping facilities which are now provided in the area and to which incoming aircraft brought to Britain £5½million in currency.
The opposition to Gatwick was much stiffer. It took place when the Opposition were in power. The full panoply of protest associations, protest funds, letters to the editor, leaders in The Times, public inquiry and changes in Government policy were involved. All that happened when the party opposite were in power.
At the public inquiry, Crawley Development Corporation, West Sussex County Council, Surrey County Council, Gatwick Protest Association, Crawley Industrial Group and the Surrey branch of the Country Landowners' Association were all heard. Following the report of the inquiry, the Government published their decisions in a White Paper. After

that White Paper was published, public criticism rapidly died down about a project which had exercised the minds of Ministers for years.
Under a Labour Government, the chorus has broken out again and in all probability will disappear as quickly as it did in 1964. The interest aroused by the Stansted agitation is, however, a good sign. People should be interested in what Parliament does and also in what it does not do.
I welcome the resolutions which I have had from parents, teachers, headmasters, ratepayers and others. Teachers have threatened in letters to me that if the airport comes to Stansted, they will resign their job at once. When the airport is in operation and the big jets are landing and taking off, my view is that as many children and parents will journey from Farnham, Bishop's Stortford, Harlow and Thaxted as now crowd the balconies of Heathrow.
There will be more noise from Stansted, but people today ask for noise—not deliberately, I agree; yet everybody wants nowadays to move more quickly. There is greater speed on the roads. We have now to impose limits and penalties against moving too quickly on the roads. Though seventy miles per hour is permitted on the M4. Even when that speed limit is broken, there are few prosecutions.
There is greater speed by rail. Today, the electric train goes from London to Liverpool and to Manchester as quickly as the aircraft was going last year. The airline service has become so depleted that it now barely operates those services. Even today, there is greater speed in the air. That is one of the problems which Stansted faces. If a parent were to wheel a baby in his pram more quickly, the child would gurgle with delight.
With greater speed there is greater power. With greater power we have much more powerful engines as the sequel to more specialised research, ultimately expressing itself in the great Olympus engine which will drive Concord at 1,450 m.p.h. and send her across and above the Atlantic in three hours, which is the time that it took me 18 years ago to fly from Glasgow to London in a D.H. Rapide. That is the significant change in speed which has taken place during that period.
There are compensations for the noise of these mighty machines. Aviation research and development has brought us into a new field. For example, the science of technology is expanding our knowledge and easing our human burdens in scores of different ways. Last Sunday, its wonder was brought inside every home in Britain which possessed a television screen. I am sure that there came to many minds last Sunday afternoon those oft-quoted words of Shakespeare when Puck told his audience
I'll rut a girdle round about the earth In forty minutes.
Elizabethans slipped out of their seats with laughter at the joke, but last Sunday, with the aid of a technology, nursed and nourished in aviation, which will bring to Britain greater prosperity than ever before, we went round the world in two minutes. The fun of the 16th century has become the fact of the 20th. That heritage of the pioneer, embodying hard work, great knowledge and profound research, has been handed on to the people of Britain. Whether they live near Abbotsinch, Heathrow or Stansted, I am certain that they will never cast that heritage aside.

8.29 p.m.

Mr. F. A. Burden: I hope that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) will not object if I do not follow him in his remarks. I agree with practically everything that he said. I want, first, to comment on the remarks of the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Boston) a neighbour of mine, in which he seemed to find something cynical, unpleasant or objectionable about the fact that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition noted that 249 Members had signed a Motion. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be generous enough to accept that it is as a result that this debate is being held today, and that he and others are able to express their views in it.

Mr. Boston: Mr. Boston rose—

Mr. Burden: I am sorry—I want to get on. The debate has given the House an opportunity to express itself on a matter which is of great concern to 249 hon. Members.
I do not want to deal with the question of Stansted, which issue has been debated strongly and fairly by hon. Mem-

bers on both sides. It is surprising how non-political the debate has been. Hon. Members will find that I shall not be particularly controversial in my remarks. I am directly interested in aviation, and I am therefore concerned about airports policy. If the Government take note of the Opposition Motion regarding the need for a national airports policy and take it to heart and do something about it they will have taken a considerable step towards ensuring that Britain, in the future is in the position referred to by Sir Sefton Brancker who, speaking in 1922 to the Institute of Transport, said:
Our future lies in the air just as our past has come from the sea.
How prophetic were those words. If the Government will accept the necessity to consider the situation from that point of view the debate will have proved of great advantage.
Enormous strides have been made in civil aviation since that statement by Sir Sefton Brancker. Last year civil aircraft carried about 250 million passengers in 50 million flying hours. Such is the rate of growth of air transport that it is almost doubling every five years. Air freight is growing at an even faster rate—increasing by about 23 per cent. per annum, and in my opinion this rate is likely to accelerate.
What is Britain's place in the world in this enormous growth industry? These matters are relevant, because they highlight the position and the need for future thought and planning. In 1966 United Kingdom airports handled a total of 22 million passengers and 350,000 tons of cargo, plus car ferries. By 1980 about 100 million passengers are expected to pass through United Kingdom airports, and cargo traffic is expected to rise to about 3½ million tons.
This is an enormous and yet reasonably predictable rate of growth. The Board of Trade must keep constant note of the fact that the air industry situation is such that it needs constant investigation and research if we are to keep abreast of it and take advantage of the opportunities provided, while foreseeing the difficulties. Those in the industry must appreciate, as I hope the Government do, the need for dynamic and imaginative planning. In the past, there was insufficient consultation in the development of many aircraft between


manufacturers and all the air operators. There was too much inclination to deal with one particular corporation, whereas, if the manufacturers had consulted all operators more closely they might have come up with some better answers.
Therefore, now, even with the airport planning, it could well be desirable and necessary to have an investigation by a planning body comprising representatives of the manufacturers, the corporations, the Airports Authority and other interests. This is a wide issue of great importance to the future of our aviation and I hope that it will be borne in mind. To take advantage of our opportunities, we need a properly thought-out airport network—an essential for a great trading nation.
Air is replacing sea as a means of communication, and will do so even more in future, and if we are to remain an important trading nation, we must seize our opportunities. Our catering for the inevitably great increase in cargo and passenger traffic is one of the yardsticks by which our efficiency will be judged. We should arrange our airports to ensure easy access to growing areas of industry and commerce, and they should be efficiently managed and equipped with the best traffic control and accommodation, and should have facilities for passengers which would compare with any others in the world.
An example of the growing importance of such a network is that Heathrow, because of the enormous post-war growth, is the third British port after London and Liverpool. In 1965, 11 million overseas passengers travelled through our airports and about 8 million through our seaports, compared with 3 million in 1956. The Minister said that last year's figure was 13 million, although I have a figure of 12 million. This is a phenomenal growth and an indication of both the opportunities and the difficulties which lie ahead.
There are problems associated with the control of airports. At present United Kingdom airports are owned and operated, in the first instance, by the British Airports Authority. Through these airports 60 per cent. of all United Kingdom traffic flows; 30 per cent. flows through municipal airports, about 8 per cent., through Board of Trade-owned airports and about 2 per cent. through privately-owned airports.
In "Airport Planning and Administration", in Political Quarterly, of October-December, 1966, Mr. R. S. Doganis, of Birmingham University wrote:
Such a structure of ownership and responsibility is not conducive to a planned and regulated development of the airports concerned. This is not a question of political ideology, of State ownership versus municipal ownership or even private ownership. It is purely a question of establishing a system of ownership and administration which allows for overall planning on broad lines of policy. The complexity of the present system patently does not.
These are important words. Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to read that paper, if he has not done so, because it is important and it will give him much guidance and advice. It emphasises the need for planning in an overall pattern the future airport requirements of the country.
Heathrow dominates all other British airports in the number of passengers and in the cargo carried, but it has almost reached the ultimate in development and capacity. When Gatwick is fully developed it will still not be able to take up the growth which is ineviable and which must be linked with the great Metropolis of London. I am sure that a third London airport is necessary. I have no wish to prejudge the situation. I ask the Government to take note of the intensity of the views expressed not only by Conservative and Liberal Members but also by their own colleagues and to look at the question of Stansted again in order to be absolutely sure that when the final irrevocable decision is taken, it is the right decision.
Stansted is operational and can be used at present. Is there not time, because of the situation, to look into the matter again so that the Government, the House and the country may be absolutely sure that the right decision has been taken? The final decision should be taken only after the most searching inquiry has been conducted into the long-term aspects and the problems which will be created wherever the airport is sited. I was glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman had to some extent looked at other sites but we all know that if we wish we can weight the case a little one way or the other. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not do that. Britain's whole future economy could be seriously upset if we make the wrong decision now.
When looking into future requirements for airports, we must make a proper assessment of the areas of population and commerce. Airports must be placed where they are most likely to be of the best commercial value. In this connection, we must carefully examine the future air traffic requirements of this country should we join the Common Market. It is clear that if we enter the E.E.C. goods must come in not just to London Airport for despatch and onward transmission to European centres, but to parts of the country like Lancashire, for textiles, Birmingham for manufactured goods, and so on. The lines of air traffic within Britain must radiate out from those areas to our Common Market customers.
Development must be regulated in forming these plans to ensure that the best use is made of land and that airports are placed where they will gain passenger and cargo traffic over a wide catchment area. We cannot constantly be developing and enlarging our major airports as an afterthought.
It is not wise to have two major airports within 25 miles of each other, as in the case of Birmingham and Coventry, or even 35 miles distant, as with Liverpool and Manchester. We must also examine the situation in Scotland to ensure that adequate air opportunities are provided.
I believe that had more imagination been shown, Prestwich could have been linked with Glasgow, and probably Abbotsinch would not have been built. Instead, there would have been an airport midway between Edinburgh and Glasgow.

Mr. Rankin: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that would not have been fair to Glasgow's conurbation, which provides the traffic, in view of the long road journey from Glasgow to Prestwich; about 26 miles?

Mr. Burden: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point of view, but we must look at this not only from the road traffic angle but of fast rail and even monorail traffic. Tremendous thought must be given to developments of this kind.
The point is that, wherever we build airports, we must ensure that there is an adequate system of communications spidering out into the countryside around them. We must not only ensure that there are extremely good road connec-

tions but, and this is terribly important, if freight growth is to receive the attention it must have there must be rail connections, with proper provision for palleting and boxing of the goods to go through to the airport. The major airports must also be designed to offer regional services throughout the country. This, again, must be part of the whole plan.
What I ask for, and what I believe to be absolutely right, is that we should accept that this is a very great challenge and that there are great opportunities but that it is not enough to create a hotch potch of airports. We have to realise that this is an immense task, and one that requires a imaginative and highly forward thinking planning. The Airports Authority is a great body, but I do not believe that it has nearly enough control. Through the Airports Authority, Government control over airport development must extend far wider, and I hope that the Authority will be encouraged to bring in people who can give it the right sort of technical advice that will ensure that a whole network of airports is laid down so as to cope with the enormous future that lies ahead.

8.53 p.m.

Mr. Robert Howarth: From the right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) we had a political opening speech—quite naturally, I suppose—after which we had a series of constituency contributions which, again, is quite understandable. The discussion has gradually come back to the real question of the country's need to establish a commonsense and objective airport policy. It is to that aspect that I wish to address myself.
Like the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden), I do not believe that sufficient of the population outside this House or, unfortunately, sufficient hon. Members, appreciate the importance of the growth of air transport. We have had figures showing the growth in passenger and cargo air transport and my information is that London Heathrow is now the major point of entry for passengers to this country. It has overtaken our seaports. In fact, Heathrow is the major European airport, and if we now ensure that London has a third airport we can do much to retain our leadership in European aviation.
I start my argument on the basis that I am convinced of the need for a third London airport. At least one hon. Member opposite has questioned its necessity but, having studied the question—and here I speak with great regret, as a Lancashire Member—I accept the need. I have been a campaigner for growth points well away from the South-East, but the figures produced by the Government, and particularly by the Airports Authority, convince me of the need to take steps now to provide a third airport. At a meeting in the House last evening, we were informed by the Chairman of the Airports Authority that Heathrow is already turning away traffic at peak periods. At this moment in 1967 at peak times traffic is being turned away, and the position, of course, will worsen very rapidly.
With the advent of very large subsonic transport aircraft such as the Boeing 747 this possibly will reduce the estimate of aircraft movement in future. In the opinion of the Airports Authority the Jumbo jets will contribute to the generation of new traffic and new aircraft movement. This would seem to suggest that the matter is very urgent indeed.
We have not a great deal of time. I do not think hon. Members opposite have appreciated that this proposal has been under study for six years. They should know this better than newcomers such as myself who have been in the House only since 1964. Their Government in 1961 began the study which led them to conclude that Stansted was a good choice for the third London airport.
The urgency which is now facing the country is best explained by the claim that not only does it take many years to plan and then to construct a major airport, but the operators themselves need considerable advance warning as to which airport they will be using in the early 1970s. The Airports Authority Chairman told the meeting last night that one major operator is already asking the Authority to indicate what capacity will be available in the early 1970s, capacity which it seems doubtful can be provided at Heathrow. In the early 1970s, now that we are beginning the era of Jumbo jets and we shall have the Concord project, the matter will be very pressing.
There is the problem of what Government and national authorities have to plan for road and rail services for the third airport. If we were to defer the decision as is suggested by the Opposition Motion, hon. Members opposite would be the first to criticise the Government for not making provision if when we reach the 70s the facilities were not available. The history of this decision goes back over six years. Three interdepartmental studies have all come to the same answer. It is accepted that the arguments that have been brought forward against Stansted could be used against any other selection for a third London airport. Any of the arguments we have heard today could be used against any of the alternatives which have been studied in depth.
We had the opportunity last night of listening to an explanation of the alternatives to Stansted. They were listed in a table of which I have a copy. They were listed under various headings of access, air traffic control, cost, effect on defence establishments, identifiable costs, engineering, road and rail services and the like. If we take the seven alternatives, Stansted, Cliffe, Sheppey, Foulness, Bedford, Silverstone, Padworth, Stansted ultimately comes out as the one site with the smallest number of objections to it. On some of the claims one could fault Stansted, but when we draw up a balance sheet, of all the objections to the seven choices which were listed in the chart Stansted comes out as the one with the smallest number of objections.
I want to summarise the view of the Chairman of the Airports Authority. He has given permission for this to be quoted in the debate. He states, after having studied all the alternatives I have listed:
I am absolutely convinced that Stansted is the right choice for a third London airport.
This is a man of great prominence and importance in the aviation world, as those with aviation experience know. Those who have been given the job by Parliament of running our national airports have studied this matter and are convinced that Stansted is the right choice for a third London airport
I hope that we shall support the Government Amendment, because I think that


it is urgent that a decision be made if Britain is to continue being Europe's major aviation carrier. We can hold up the decision and cling to the rural Luddites of Essex. We appreciate their concern, because they are directly affected. Viewing this in the national interest, Mr. Deputy Chairman, it appears to me that, on the best information available, and as a result of very expert consideration, the Government's choice of Stansted as the third London airport is the right one.

9.1 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: The debate, when it is all weighed up at the end of the day, has once again exposed what is the fundamental weakness of the Government: they persist in thinking that standing firm on the wrong policy is a sign of strength. What they talk about as being firmness appears now to very large numbers of people, notably on this issue, as just plain, ordinary obstinacy.
As I listened to the President of the Board of Trade, I felt that now that he has taken over responsibilities for Aviation he should bear in mind that minds are like parachutes: they do not function unless they open. I do not think I need say a very great deal by way of sharp criticism of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. His hon. Friends have done that for me already. The hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) was particularly sharp and pointed in her observations. Indeed, the Government have found very few supporters on their side of the House today.
The trouble is, Mr. Deputy Chairman, that over Stansted, and indeed in all the matters discussed in the debate, the Government have consistently failed to appreciate the need for a national airport policy in a wide social and economic context. I appreciated, as I am sure the House did, the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) and of the hon. Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Robert Howarth). They discussed eloquently the importance of aviation to Britain. They spoke of the rapid growth of air transport, freight as well as air passenger, and of the tremedous implications that has for our future. I am sure there is no dispute on either side for that issue.
I have to declare an interest in the aircraft industry, but tonight, at this

stage of the debate, I shall be mainly concerned with the broader planning aspects which are raised in the Motion. Not only is there no national plan, but no proper or sufficient use has been made even of such regional planning as exists. Even if it were true, which it is not, that the Conservative Government were committed to Stansted, the use of that argument to justify the Government's present position shows a pathetic inability to understand and to react to all that has happened and all the discussion which has taken place since the Inter-Departmental Committee's Report was published in March 1964. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) talked about Gatwick. The Government have not even taken on board the lessons of the Gatwick inquiry, which was reported on in July, 1954.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) reminded us, the Inter-Departmental Committee on the Third London Airport, which reported in June 1963, was predominantly composed of technical representatives of the Ministry of Aviation and the airlines. That was perfectly right at that stage, because they were concerned with eliminating possible sites. It was the necessary first stage, and their main recommendations were inevitably concerned with traffic control, air routing and so on. Therefore, Mr. Deputy Chairman, it is wrong to suggest, as the White Paper does, that those technical representatives either did or could go deeply into the wider considerations. Equally, it is wrong to say, as the President of the Board of Trade said, that the previous Administration endorsed—"endorsed" is the word used in the White Paper—the conclusion of the Inter-Department Committee that Stansted was the right site for London's third airport.
The President of the Board of Trade quoted Mr. Julian Amery—this is page (iii) of the Report—
The Government believe that this is the right choice.
Ministers choose their words carefully. When one says at that stage that the Government "believe" that Stansted is the right choice, one is not saying, "I am satisfied", "I have decided", or, as the hon. Member for Bolton, East said,


"I am absolutely convinced". In the very next sentence, Mr. Amery said:
It is, however, only proper that all those likely to be affected should be given the opportunity to consider and discuss the reasons for the choice of Stansted.
The President of the Board of Trade said that the Government had gone further than that because they had had two inquiries, but it was always envisaged that there should be a public inquiry into this matter. That was stated clearly in the letter which the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) sent on 12th September, 1964, to Mr. Butler, as he then was. It is worth quoting in full what my right hon. Friend said, because the position has been so badly distorted:
You have been telling me of the problems which arise over the choice of a third London airport following upon the report of the Inter-Departmental Committee set up to consider the question. The Committee's recommendations in favour of Stansted were derived from a study of the operational and other technical requirements of an airport. The Government recognises that, while these technical considerations carry weight, many other considerations arise, such as the disturbance to local life in the villages and towns in the neighbourhood, loss of amenities and loss of good agricultural land.
The Government, therefore, decided that the public inquiry should take place some time next year, and I am aware that you would not like this to be too long delayed. It is important that this inquiry should be thorough and genuine, and I want to make quite clear to you that the Government has in no way made its final decision and cannot do so until it receives the report of the inquiry. It would, therefore, be fully understandable if your constituents concentrated on preparing their case for the inquiry meanwhile.
I further say that not only has the Government not made its final decision but that the door is not closed to suggestions of alternative solutions, if they are put forward. This is in fact a long-term matter which can be decided only after a thorough public investigation has taken place.
It is perfectly clear, therefore, Mr. Deputy Chairman—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has more than once referred to me as the Deputy Chairman. May I remind him that we are in the House and I have another hat?

Mr. Rippon: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I had taken the error

up from the hon. Member for Bolton, East.
That letter made it perfectly clear, first, that there was no final Government decision, second, that no final decision was to be made until a thorough and genuine public inquiry had been held, and third—this is particularly important—that the door was not to be closed at the public inquiry to suggestions of alternative solutions if they were put forward.

Mr. Newens: I think that I have made my case very clear during the debate. Surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not deny that the previous Government bear a considerable share of the responsibility for the decision? Does he not agree that it is very unfair to imply that anything else is the case?

Mr. Rippon: I should have thought that the letter was perfectly clear. I can rely on that.
The Conservative Government had full regard—and this is also important—to what happened at the Gatwick inquiry, when two points were made by the inspector. The first was that it was important to have early consultations with the local authorities concerned. Therefore, after the publication of the Inter-Departmental Committee's Report in 1963 there were informal discussions with the councils, and Ministry officers explained the position to them.
The second criticism made after the Gatwick inquiry was that its terms of reference were not wide enough to allow alternative suggestions to be canvassed. That raises two problems that we must consider tonight. First, the terms of reference of any inquiry into a major national airport, and secondly, the form that the inquiry can properly take.
I think that it is now clear that, unfortunately, the terms of reference at the Stansted inquiry were far too narrow to permit any case for an alternative to be properly deployed. That meant that the Government effectively closed the door to the alternative suggestions which the then Prime Minister had indicated would be considered in the letter of 12th September, 1964, from which I quoted.
We must all understand that it is difficult to open a public inquiry of the kind undertaken at Stansted or Gatwick to


every conceivable proposal, because there is then the problem of allowing other people who may be affected in other areas opportunities to come forward. My hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk) illustrated the difficulties into which the Government have got themselves because the President of the Board of Trade, faced with that situation, thinks that it is sufficient to say two or three sentences about each alternative in brief amplification of the White Paper, and say that we must accept it because the Government say so.
It is because of these difficulties that we now suggest in the light of experience that the Government should set up a somewhat different form of inquiry. Some people have suggested a Royal Commission. Certainly it should be an independent body on which a number of people of various qualifications serve. For example, it could adopt the procedures of, say, the Herbert Commission, which inquired into the future pattern of London Government. It could meet the local authorities on their own ground and it could take written or oral evidence.
It might not be necessary, and indeed it might not be feasible, to have everybody represented by counsel and have every document cross-examined to at length by every potentially interested party. But it would be a body of men who would cross-examine the officials concerned, and cross-examine the Government on the statements they make in the White Paper. There would be an opportunity for an independent body to probe some of the issues raised by many of my hon. Friends today.
It appears that the Government themselves believe that this is the right way to deal with matters of this kind. This is stated to be the Government's view in paragraph 29 of the White Paper on planning policy, Town and Country Planning, published yesterday. It states:
The Government are also reviewing the procedure for cases that raise wide or novel issues of more than local significance. Although these cases are few in number, they are important in themselves and the inquiries into them arouse widespread public interest. Yet, by their nature, the decision in these cases often turns on matters that cannot satisfactorily be deployed at a public local inquiry of the conventional kind. For example, there may be issues of national or regional policy that should be settled before a project can be properly weighed in its local context. Again,

there may be important underlying questions arising out of new developments either in the technological or economic field which cannot fully be elucidated at a public local inquiry. Again, a proposed development may have important effects on the level of population and employment over a wide area; or the possibilities of carrying out the development in another way or another place may not have been fully examined by the developers.
That could apply directly to Stansted. There is no need for anybody to call for a new planning Bill. It can be done straight away. That is all that we are asking.
Quite apart from the form of the inquiry that the Government instituted, it is their behaviour since the report was received that seems to be inexplicable and in some instances completely outrageous. Many hon. Members have quoted the paragraph in the White Paper in which the inspector comments that there is a necessity to have a wider review bringing in all the questions of traffic in the air, traffic on the ground, regional planning and national planning, a review which he said must cover military as well as civil aviation.
On this the key sections of the White Paper are paragraphs 40 and 41, in which the Government explain why they decided against an independent Commission. That was their first fundamental mistake. They decided against an independent Commission, according to those paragraphs, for two reasons. One reason was that a decision either for or against Stansted was becoming urgent. In saying that, the Government neglected two things. The first one was that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire, as Prime Minister in 1964, had described this as a long-term matter and promised full inquiry. They ignored also the letter by the present Home Secretary—he was then Minister of Aviation—to Essex County Council on 24th September, 1965, in which he said:
If the outcome of the inquiry is that another site is to be preferred to Stansted, this will be followed up, and it will not be ruled out for lack of time to study and survey the site.
The urgency of the time factor, quite apart from the undertakings given, does not even stand up in the light of the declaration in the White Paper that the requirement may be for a new date between 1974 and 1976. My hon. Friend


the Member for Saffron Walden has already pointed out the discrepancies between what the President of the Board of Trade said today and what Mr. Peter Masefield said yesterday. These are the sort of matters that an independent Commission could properly inquire into, and inquire into very quickly.
The second reason for refusing the independent Commission was that the Inter-Departmental Committee had already made a thorough examination of the question in 1962 and 1963. That is simply not true. There are two short sentences that I will quote from the Report. Item 8(f) of the summary of recommendations says:
The area is in many ways suitable for a planned influx of population such as a major airport would inevitably attract.
It then refers to paragraph 63, and all that that has to say is:
Stansted is within a convenient distance of Bishop's Stortford, which today has a population of over 18,000 and lies in an area offering scope for large-scale population growth. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have pointed out that the development of an airport here, together with the associated industry and housing, would mean a loss of good agricultural land; but against this may be set the economic value of the new airport in promoting industry and in maintaining London's position as one of the chief air traffic centres of the world.
That cannot be regarded as a deep study into the matter eliminating the need for any further consideration.
Instead of the independent Commission we had a new inter-departmental review, and that is from every point of view a thoroughly unsatisfactory process. It was rightly described in The Guardian as a bit of:
inter-departmental in-fighting—a monument to non-planning".
The hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Newens) today called it the negation of planning.
It is extraordinary that the Government never even sought the views of the South-East Regional Economic Planning Council or the Standing Conference on Greater London Planning. As speaker after speaker today has pointed out, the White Paper admits that in the Government's view the strongest of the objections to Stansted was on regional planning grounds. We cannot dismiss in a couple

of paragraphs the difficulties involved in the creation of a new community of 100,000 people even if the Government have taken some sort of preliminary decisions which might be necessary.
As the hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East said, we have to look at the whole problem in a much wider context—whether London is to grow in this way and how we are to reconcile this with our policy of diversification to the regions. It is not sensible to consider Stansted or, for that matter, any other international airport except in the context of the general plan in the regions concerned. I understand that the Standing Conference on Greater London Planning is about to report. We know nothing of its views on the matter.
It is not only a question of whether there is to be a third London Airport, but there is even talk of a fourth. The Inter-Departmental Committee said that we should consider in about 1968 whether London needs a fourth airport. Mr. Masefield, who has been quoted frequently because he is responsible in this matter in relation to the Airports Authority, said the other day that there would be no decision yet on how many international airports we are to have, much less where they are to be, quite apart from the subject of the domestic airports which we may require.
To tear this out of context is not only unreasonable, but manifestly not in keeping with the Government's own declared policy. Why do not the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Housing and Local Government take a look at the White Paper on Transport Policy issued in July, 1966? I am not surprised that the Minister of Transport says that she has not been very much consulted. She could hardly have been consulted by her right hon. Friends in the light of what she said in that White Paper in paragraph 71. She said:
The main transport system—the railways, the inter-urban road network, the ports and airports—must be planned centrally and investment must be co-ordinated. The central Government must therefore draw up the broad framework for the development of the system in the light of the total needs of the economy, and determine the main priorities within it. It is equally important, however, that the overall transport plan should reflect the needs of the individual regions. Decisions about road, rail and airport investment need to be taken in the light of comprehensive studies of the


transport needs of each region, though in the case of air transport the international aspect is at least as important as the domestic. These studies in turn are dependent on, and must be related to, the overall planning of objectives for the region, and must take into account not only the existing transport requirements, but also future population growth, changes in the structure of industry and employment, and the importance of safeguarding and improving environmental standards.
The Regional Economic Planning Councils have an important part to play in the planning of transport.
But they are not even consulted. It is an extraordinary state of affairs, and if a copy of that White Paper is not available to the Minister of Housing and Local Government he might like to take a look at the extraordinary set of Answers given by the President of the Board of Trade on 21st June in reply to a number of Questions. He said that the Government could not hold the consultations—and this is significant—that they would have wished—presumably because they realised that they were necessary—
… following the rules laid down by the Council on Tribunals."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st June, 1967; Vol. 748, c. 1720.]
Today, the President of the Board of Trade referred again to the matter of the Chalkpit case, but it is doubtful whether this applied since it was not an inquiry in the normal way under Section 22 or Section 23 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962.
Listening to the President of the Board of Trade, no one would have gathered that these rules were designed to protect the private citizen against the Government and not to shield the Government from criticism. In any event, there is no reason why the Government should not have taken evidence from these bodies and then have submitted it to the objectors for their comments or even reopened the inquiry.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham said this is what has been done recently in another case. If the normal planning course had been adopted, the procedure that the Government have used in the White Paper would certainly have been thoroughly objectionable. A secret inter-departmental inquiry of this kind is much more seriously damaging to the interests of objectors than it would have been to have taken the evidence which was required and to have given the objec-

tors a further opportunity to comment on it.
Another aspect of this matter, with which I will deal briefly, is the criticisms which have been raised about the way in which the White Paper is riddled with defects, inaccurate statistical calculations, and wild generalisations. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), in a characteristically powerful speech, showed clearly how those generalisations ought and would have been scrutinised by any Commission of which he was a member or any Board before which he might have appeared. He made reference to the survey carried out for the Board of Trade in 1965 which, according to paragraph 21 of the White Paper, indicated that as much as 80 per cent. of London's international traffic is generated by the London conurbation and southeast England. If one examines the survey it shows somewhat different statistics. It shows that 73 per cent. of departures and 81 per cent. of arrivals are from the London conurbation and south-east England. That may be a minor statistical variation, but the White Paper happens to take the most favourable figure from the Government's point of view.
What the White Paper does not show is that the survey dealt with only 423 passengers arriving and 448 departing during four weeks in July, 1965. I think they were probably asked the wrong question. The question was, "In which town in the United Kingdom did you start your journey to the airport. or, alternatively, to which town in the United Kingdom are you now travelling?" Many might well have said London, even though it was not their ultimate destination, because the question did not say. "What is your ultimate destination?". The survey is absolutely useless.
The White Paper in paragraph 25 says,
… the recent fast growth of air freight has only taken place at the London airports; it has not been reflected in other parts of the country.
This is not true. The hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East spoke of 60 per cent. growth in Birmingham. The hon. Member for Gillingham gave formidable figures of the growth in air freight. Last year it represented 8 per cent. in total value of our imports and exports—about £800 million.
One of the worst features of this sort of inter-Departmental inquiry, particularly this one, is that there is no confidence in the statistics which have been produced. This applies to costs. The estimates are not only open to question as they stand on particular items; they are clearly based on false considerations. They have given no, or no adequate, consideration to consequential or social costs. I have a feeling that one of the difficulties has been that the inter-Departmental argument turns to some extent on whose Vote it is going on. If it does not go on any Department's vote and is a social cost it does not matter, because the Treasury, always adopting the narrowest possible attitude on these matters, rarely has regard to the national interest in determining the cost of a particular project. It is not a factor which bears very much weight in the Treasury mind when trying to decide what the annual cost for the budgetary purpose may happen to be. All this shows an utterly deplorable situation.
The Government are very foolish to ignore the weight of national public opinion upon this matter. We are not concerned with local objections of interested parties. It was wrong for the President of the Board of Trade to quote letters saying that certain people are for in one part of the country and certain people are against. That is not the point of the controversy.
We are asking for a national inquiry because the Government have adopted the wrong sort of inquiry. They have ignored the wider considerations, they have ridden roughshod over the regional economic councils and the professional bodies, they have betrayed their own undertakings, and they have undermined their now declared policies. In consequence, there is no public confidence in their judgment and good faith in this matter.
This debate has reinforced the anxieties which were expressed by the Presidents of three important institutes in The Times yesterday when they said that the Government's case rests upon "shaky assumptions, inadequate data, and questionable arguments". I would like to think that even at this late stage the Government would listen to common sense and reason. It may be that I am a bit optimistic about

that. As the Irishman said, it is no good going to the goathouse to look for wool.
But if the Government refuse, as I am afraid they may, to see the error of these ways, we shall certainly continue to press the matter to a Division, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden said, we shall continue to press the matter in the country. The Government may win in the Division Lobby tonight, but they will do so only at the sacrifice of the principles and convictions of a large number of their supporters in the House. Those outside will be taught once again the lesson that the last thing which the present Government will do is admit a mistake, no matter what the national or individual consequences may be.

9.30 p.m.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Anthony Greenwood): While my blood is still running cold, I think that I should declare two conflicting interests. The first is that I have a cottage in Essex and therefore a vested interest in preserving the calm of the county and the peace of the skies above it. Secondly, I am in the rather ironic position of being involved in the litigation which the county council has launched and, as a ratepayer, presumably contributing to the costs of that litigation. My real reason for mentioning it is that I have to be even more discreet than usual and even more select in what I say for fear of saying anything which might seem to be prejudicial to the cause which has been started.
I confess that I have a strong emotional prejudice against using Stansted Mountfitchet in this way. I have known the area since I was 12. It is an area of great sentimental importance to Socialists on this side of the House. I used to go there at the age of 12 to visit the famous Red Countess of Warwick at Easton Lodge. I remember visiting H. G. Wells at the delightful old rectory which was the Matchings Easy home of Mr. Britling, and I first worshipped at Thaxted in the days of the great Conrad Noel. This area is as beautiful as anywhere in the kingdom, with names which are symbolic of England itself, names like Wendens Ambo and Margaret Roding and Good Easter and Hatfield Broad Oak and a host of other names of that kind. I can genuinely sympathise with the obviously


very deep local feeling which exists in that part of Essex, and I hope that the House will acquit me of being a Philistine in matters of this kind.
But being a planning Minister is a thankless task and there are times when I look back nostalgically to my quieter days at the Colonial Office when British Guiana with all its problems was a less explosive subject than Stansted Mountfitchet. The right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Can) put his finger on the nub of the problem when he reminded us that everybody dislikes an airport in his own area. Anxious as I always am to follow the example of the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell), and I wish that I could follow him on this occasion in paying regard to the wishes of the people, as he advocates, the difficulty is that wherever one wants to put an airport the wishes of the people are always against it. This is one of those difficult subjects in which one has to try to strike a balance. As hon. Members on both sides of the House have said and as the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) reminded us, there was an almighty row when it was proposed to put the airport at Gatwick, and I am absolutely certain that there would be an almighty row if we decided to change from Stansted and go instead to Sheppey. We should be told, perfectly properly, of its holiday importance to tens of thousands of people in London and we should be told of the danger or nuisance to Canterbury or Rochester cathedrals.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) was talking about Heathrow, I could not help recalling that the Queen's own home at Windsor is only 6½ miles from Heathrow, as, indeed, is St. George's Chapel. I understand that the effect of the stacking arrangements if Stansted is put into operation will be much less on Epping Forest than the present stacking arrangements for Heathrow in the case of Windsor Great Park.
It is regrettable but true that everyone believes in airports in somebody else's district. That was what I had in mind when I used the phrase quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Boston) when I said that Stansted was the least undesirable site. Wherever there is an airport there is noise, there is

danger to amenity and there is possibly a risk to historic buildings. The task of the planner is to choose a site where we can strike a proper balance between a number of considerations. On the one hand, there is what I believe to be the overriding consideration of the safety of air travel. We heard from the right hon. Member for Mitcham and other hon. Members today interesting information about the way in which the safety of air travel could be imperilled if the provision of airports was inadequate.
One has to balance safety, accessibility and reasonable economy, on the one hand, against, on the other hand, the destruction of amenity, the loss of agricultural land and the damage to regional planning. I agree entirely with a point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) when he said that all the factors have to be taken into account.
To establish that one site is better than another on grounds only of economy, only of accessibility, only on grounds of agricultural land, or only on destruction of amenity is not enough. It is the totality of the considerations which really matters. Some sites are better on certain grounds than on others, but we have to decide which of them will meet fully the criteria which I have described. That is what the previous Government and the present Government have tried to ensure.
I wish tonight to stick almost entirely to the procedure that we have followed and the procedure which we propose, because they have provided the main subject of criticism from the Opposition Front Bench. I should like to take the House back into some of the history of the Stansted proposal. I make no apology for doing so because, in spite of the fact that 250 or more hon. Members have signed a Motion, the average attendance in the House during the afternoon and evening has been between 30 and 50; and there may be some right hon. and hon. Members present who have not heard some of the historical considerations which have been deployed earlier in the day.
I should like to take the House back to 1953, when Stansted was one of the seven airports in the London area operated by the Ministry of Civil Aviation. The policy at that time was set out in Command


Paper 8902 of July, 1953. The White Paper said that it was proposed to hold Stansted in reserve in case a further London airport—that is to say, in addition to Heathrow and Gatwick—should be needed later. But, as one hon. Member opposite pointed out, keeping Stansted as a reserve and training airport was an expensive undertaking. It is not surprising that the Select Committee on Estimates, in its Fifth Report for the Session 1960–61, concluded that the time had come to reassess Stansted, and it recommended that the Minister of Aviation should undertake an immediate study of Stansted's propects as the third airport for London.
In November, 1961, the Minister of Aviation appointed the Hole Committee. The right hon. Member for Mitcham described the composition of that Committee. It consisted almost entirely of aviation experts; indeed, of the 16 members, one was from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, one from the Ministry of Transport and 14 represented various aviation interests. Like the right hon. Member, I make no complaint of that, because the Committee was clearly principally concerned with the feasibility of Stansted as an international airport in respect of problems of air traffic and problems of the safety of aircraft.

Mr. Rippon: Will the right hon. Gentleman try not to deal with matters about which he makes no complaint, and deal with those matters about which we do make complaint?

Mr. Greenwood: I am afraid that if I dealt only with matters of which the right hon. and learned Gentleman complains the debate would be a very long one. There are two sides to the House and I am addressing myself to my hon. Friends as much as to hon. Members opposite. If anybody thinks that the composition of that Committee was blameworthy—and that criticism has been made in the Press—the blame does not rest with us. It rests, if anywhere, with hon. Gentlemen opposite.
The recommendation of the Hole Committee was published in 1964. I was interested to hear the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham refer only to Recommendation 8(f). If the right hon. and

learned Gentleman had got as far as Recommendation 10(a), (b) and (c) he would have read that:
London will need a new airport by the early 1970s. The new airport should be planned to deal ultimately with a similar level and type of traffic to that expected at Heathrow. It must, therefore, be able to have at least one pair of parallel runways. The new airport should be sited at Stansted, Essex.
The Minister of Aviation, in a foreword to the Report, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not seem to think constituted a commitment for the Government, was certainly—as far as one can read—enthusiastic about the Report. He said:
The choice of a site for a new airport will not please everyone. Wherever it is put, it will take away land that could be used for other important purposes. There are those who viewing the choice from the aspect of amenity alone would like to see it anywhere but in their own neighbourhood. Others would welcome it as near as possible to their factories or offices. The choice is limited by technical considerations. The Report discusses these in detail."—
whatever the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham may have said—
It concludes that Stansted Airport should he selected and designated as London's third airport. The Government believe that this is the right choice.

Mr. Rippon: Mr. Rippon rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the Minister does not give way the right hon. and learned Gentleman must resume his seat.

Mr. Greenwood: I did not interrupt the right hon. and learned Gentleman and I have already given way to him.
Mr. Julian Amery's foreword to the report ended:
I hope that there will be a full public discussion of this report and I shall welcome constructive suggestions for making Stansted an efficient and attractive airport"—

Mr. Rippon: Mr. Rippon rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister is obviously not giving way—[Interruption.] Order. There is a little too much airport noise at the moment.

Mr. Greenwood: The right hon. and learned Member for Hexham said that the Government did not endorse that Report and that a second inquiry was always envisaged. The remarkable thing is that the Report was in 1963 and it was only in the middle of the General Elec-


tion of 1964 that the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir A. Douglas-Home) wrote to the present Lord Butler making it perfectly clear that, although there would be an inquiry, nevertheless, it would be the Government who ultimately took the decision. That is the practice—

Mr. Rippon: Mr. Rippon rose—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Greenwood: That is the procedure which we have followed—

Mr. Rippon: That is not true.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Rippon.

Mr. Rippon: Mr. Rippon rose—

Mr. Greenwood: Mr. Greenwood rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I thought that the Minister had given way. Mr. Greenwood.

Mr. Greenwood: I am afraid that the right hon. and learned Gentleman lost his opportunity—

Mr. Rippon: Mr. Rippon rose—

An Hon. Member: Throw him out.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the Minister does not give way, the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) knows that he should not persist.

Mr. Greenwood: Mr. Greenwood rose—

Hon. Members: Shame.

Mr. Greenwood: I think it was the right hon. Member for Mitcham who said that we had complained that our hands had been tied; it is quite clear, looking back, that, at least from 1953 onwards, the assumption was consistently made that Stansted would be the third London airport. That assumption helped to determine the routing of air traffic, including military traffic—hon. Members must remember that there are twice as many military movements as civil movements every day—and also helped to determine the distribution of military airfields and other installations.
If we had sited the airport at Silver-stone, which, on planning grounds, I thought a most attractive proposition, it would have meant that eight Royal Air Force stations would have been completely out and the use of 13 would have

been severely limited. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Newens) objects to defence considerations intruding on matters of this kind, I hope that he will remember that this would have cost about £100 million, which I believe could probably be better used for hospitals, schools, houses and other provision of that kind.
It is worth dwelling a little on the various planning processes involved in this type of case. The need for a new airport arises from the requirements of air commerce. The right hon. and learned Member for Hexham complained that the Government's claim that about 80 per cent. of air passengers are going to and coming from London was based on calculations made from a specimen of between 400 and 500 people. This, I think, is a characteristic miscalculation on the right hon. Gentleman's part. The figure was in fact 11,000—perhaps a trifling mistake for him, but one which would strike most of us as at any rate reasonably substantial.
We referred to the need for diversification of industry. The present Government have certainly done more than any other Government to procure the diversification of industry, but it must be absolutely clear that an airport does not come into this category. However much I, as a Lancashire Member, might like the new airport to be in Manchester, there is not much point in putting it there if in fact, between 70 and 80 per cent. of the people want to go to London or are travelling from London.

Lord Balniel: Two new towns have been built just underneath the gliding area of Stansted—Hatfield and Welwyn Garden City. They are in my constituency. Aircraft will fly over them at 2,000 feet. Was a survey conducted among people living in those two new towns?

Mr. Greenwood: That is an entirely different point from a survey of the requirements of air passengers. In any event, it is a point which could have been raised much earlier in the discussion. The noble Lord's attendance during the day has not been, shall we say, obtrusive.
The right hon. Gentleman quoted, not I thought with adequate appreciation, paragraph 29 of the Government's White


Paper on planning policy. He did not quote the following paragraph, which says:
Where issues of this sort arise, the ordinary public local inquiry is not satisfactory either as a method of permitting the full issues to be thrashed out or as a basis for a decision which can take into account the whole range of practicable alternatives. The Government are, therefore, examining whether and how procedures can be changed for these exceptional cases while avoiding unreasonable delay or impairing existing rights of making objection and being heard.
I should have thought that the House would be pleased to know that the Government are seized of the importance of this problem and that they have under consideration the very difficult problems which we are discussing today.
I turn to some other points which have been raised in the debate. The right hon. Gentleman was very indignant when he said that we had not consulted in the inquiry the South-East Economic Planning Council. We did not consult that Council because it was not set up until a fortnight after the inquiry had ended.

Mr. Kirk: Mr. Kirk rose—

Mr. Greenwood: I will not give way. Obviously, if we were starting now we should consult the Economic Planning Council in a case of this kind. The question which we had to decide was whether the Council should be consulted during the time that the inspector's report was under consideration by the Ministry concerned. This was not a question of the Lord Chancellor's rules, because the inquiry was non-statutory and therefore not covered by the rules. We were much concerned, however, with the question of the propriety of consulting outside bodies, and we decided that it was right in the circumstances to consult no outside bodies at all. If at that stage we had consulted outside bodies, it would have meant starting the inquiry all over again with the consequent delay which would have been involved.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) made one or two remarks about the composition of the inter-Departmental review which, I must confess, I regretted, because the composition of that inter-Departmental review reflected the interests which the inspector had said should be consulted. Unlike the Committee which the previous Government

set up, it was under the chairmanship of the Department of Economic Affairs. Its members were the Board of Trade, the Ministry of Housing, the Ministry of Transport, the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Defence and the Treasury.
The hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk) asked a number of questions, one of them about a remark made by Mr. Masefield on television the other night. I am authorised by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to say that Mr. Masefield had misunderstood the question.[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am sorry if hon. Gentlemen opposite are not prepared to do justice to the Chairman of the British Airports Authority, who is very much involved in this. The point is that the runway will need to be in operation by 1974 and that work will have to begin in 1971–72.
The hon. Member for Saffron Walden spoke of the problems of water and sewerage in the area. I am happy to tell him that since the Report was published the inspectors of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government have looked into the problem and now say that there will, in fact, be no difficulty.
Before leaving the remarks of the hon. Member for Saffron Walden, I would like to pay tribute to the work of the inspector in this inquiry. He did an extremely good job; but an inspector is, of course, not an umpire but a reporter. The House would no doubt criticise me much more frequently if I never rejected the advice I got from inspectors appointed to consult at inquiries.
We really cannot shuffle off our responsibilities on to further committees of inquiry, Royal Commissions or any other bodies of that kind. The time has come to make a decision on a problem which has been the subject of discussion since at least 1953. We must make a decision.
This has been an interesting exercise—[Interruption.]—a particularly interesting exercise in public relations. The Sunday Times stated, in a charming phrase, that
… it will provide a fieldday for connoisseurs of the wilder reaches of do-it-yourself
It described the proposals for Sheppey and Foulness as "genuinely bizarre", while the Economist stated on 3rd June:
The opponents of Stansted do not help their case by putting forward cockeyed alternative proposals for airports in bogs, miles


away from anywhere, on the Isle of Sheppey

Mr. Kirk: Mr. Kirk rose—

Mr. Greenwood: As I was saying—

Mr. Kirk: Be fair. Give way.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk) had a good innings. He must control himself.

Mr. Greenwood: There has been a well organised campaign, on which I congratulate the organisers. I sympathise with the feelings they have, but the interests of the nation must come first. I therefore hope that the House will support the Government in the Amendment.

Mr. Carr: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the House will remain good natured as it has been throughout the debate. I want to hear the last minute of the debate.

Mr. Carr: Would the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether a proper cost-benefit analysis was made about all the different sites; and will he publish the results of it?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I have sat in the House throughout the debate and have not heard a more deplorable speech than that of the Minister. He totally failed—[Interruption.]—to answer any of the cogent and reasonable arguments adduced by my hon. Friends. He has entirely failed to answer the debate.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Hon. Members: Answer. Shame.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Opposition do not want to talk this out.
Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 239, Noes 303.

Division No. 402.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Corfield, F. V.
Grieve, Percy


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Costain, A. P.
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Astor, John
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver
Gurden, Harold


Awdry, Daniel
Crouch, David
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Baker, W. H. K.
Crowder, F. P.
Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)


Balniel, Lord
Cunningham, Sir Knox
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Currie, G. B. H.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)


Batsford, Brian
Dalkeith, Earl of
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Dance, James
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Bell, Ronald
Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Harvie Anderson, Miss


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Hastings, Stephen


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Hay, John


Bessell, Peter
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel


Biffen, John
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward


Biggs-Davison, John
Doughty, Charles
Heseltine, Michael


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Higgins, Terence L.


Black, Sir Cyril
Drayton, G. B.
Hiley, Joseph


Body, Richard
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hill, J. E. B.


Bossom, Sir Clive
Eden, Sir John
Hirst, Geoffrey


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Emery, Peter
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Eyre, Reginald
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin


Braine, Bernard
Farr, John
Holland, Philip


Brewis, John
Fisher, Nigel
Hornby, Richard


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Howell, David (Guildford)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col.Sir Walter
Forrest, George
Hunt, John


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Fortescue, Tim
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Foster, Sir John
Iremonger, T. L.


Bryan, Paul
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Galbraith, Hon. T. G.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Gibson-Watt, David
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Burden, F. A.
Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Campbell, Gordon
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Carlisle, Mark
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Jopling, Michael


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Glover, Sir Douglas
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Cary, Sir Robert
Glyn, Sir Richard
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Channon, H. P. G.
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Kerby, Capt. Henry


Clark, Henry
Goodhart, Philip
Kershaw, Anthony


Clegg, Walter
Goodhew, Victor
Kimball, Marcus


Cooke, Robert
Gower, Raymond
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Grant, Anthony
Kirk, Peter


Cordle, John
Gresham Cooke, R.
Kitson, Timothy




Knight, Mrs. Jill
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Stodart, Anthony


Lambton, Viscount
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Tapsell, Peter


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Pardoe, John
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Longden, Gilbert
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Teeling, Sir William


Lubbock, Erie
Peel, John
Temple, John M.


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Percival, Ian
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Peyton, John
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Tilney, John


McMastar, Stanley
Pounder, Rafton
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Maddan, Martin
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Maginnis, John E.
Prior, J. M. L.
Vickers Dame Joan


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Pym, Francis
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Marten, Neil
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Maude, Angus
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Wall, Patrick


Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Walters, Dennis


Mawby, Ray
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Ward, Dame Irene


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Weatherill, Bernard


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Ridsdale, Julian
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Robson Brown, Sir William
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Miscampbell, Norman
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Wilson Geoffrey (Truro)


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Monro, Hector
Royle, Anthony
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Montgomery, Fergus
Russell, Sir Ronald
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Woodnutt, Mark


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Worsley, Marcus


Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Scott, Nicholas
Wright, Esmond


Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Sharples, Richard
Wylie, N. R.


Murton, Oscar
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)



Neave, Airey
Sinclair, Sir George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Smith, John
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


Nott, John
Stainton, Keith
Mr. Jasper More.


Onslow, Cranley
Steel, David (Roxburgh)





NOES


Albu, Austen
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Chapman, Donald
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Alldritt, Walter
Coe, Denis
Foley, Maurice


Allen, Scholefield
Coleman, Donald
Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)


Anderson, Donald
Concannon, J. D.
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)


Archer, Peter
Conlan, Bernard
Ford, Ben


Armstrong, Ernest
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Forrester, John


Ashley, Jack
Crawshaw, Richard
Fowler, Gerry


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Cronin, John
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Freeson, Reginald


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Galpern, Sir Myer


Barnes, Michael
Dalyell, Tam
Gardner, Tony


Barnett, Joel
Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Garrett, W. E.


Baxter, William
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P.C.


Beaney, Alan
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Gourlay, Harry


Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Bence, Cyril
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Gregory, Arnold


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Bidwell, Sydney
Delargy, Hugh
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)


Binns, John
Dell, Edmund
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)


Bishop, E. S.
Dempsey, James
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.


Blackburn, F.
Dewar, Donald
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Hamiton, James (Bothwell)


Boardman, H.
Dickens, James
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Booth, Albert
Dobson, Ray
Hamling, William


Boston, Terence
Doig, Peter
Hannan, William


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Donnelly, Desmond
Harper, Joseph


Bowden, Rt. Hn. Herbert
Dunn, James A.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Boyden, James
Dunnett, Jack
Hart, Mrs. Judith


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Haseldine, Norman


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Hattersley, Roy


Brooks, Edwin
Edelman, Maurice
Hazell, Bert


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Edwards, William Merioneth)
Henig, Stanley


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Ellis, John
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
English, Michael
Hilton, W. S.


Buchan, Norman
Ensor, David
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Hooley, Frank


Butter, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Homer, John


Butter, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Fernyhough, E.
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Fitch, Harold
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)


Cant, R. B.
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)







Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Manuel, Archie
Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)


Howie, w.
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Ryan, John


Hoy, James
Mason, Roy
Sheldon, Robert


Huckfield, L.
Maxwell, Robert
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mayhew, Christopher
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Mellish, Robert
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Mendelson, J. J.
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Mikardo, Ian
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Hunter, Adam
Millan, Bruce
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Skeffington, Arthur


Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Small, William


Janner, Sir Barnett
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Snow, Julian


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Molloy, William
Spriggs, Leslie


Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)
Moonman, Eric
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Stonehouse, John


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Swain, Thomas


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Moyle, Roland
Swingler, Stephen


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Symonds, J. B.


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Murray, Albert
Taverne, Dick


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Neal, Harold
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Judd, Frank
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swinden)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Kelley, Richard
Norwood, Christopher
Thornton, Ernest


Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Oakes, Gordon
Tinn, James


Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Ogden, Eric
Tomney, Frank


Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
O'Malley, Brian
Tuck, Raphael


Lawson, George
Oram, Albert E.
Urwin, T. W.


Leadbitter, Ted
Orme, Stanley
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Ledger, Ron
Oswald, Thomas
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)




Lester, Miss Joan
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Wallace, George


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Padley, Walter
Watkins, David (Consett)


Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Paget, R. T.
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Lipton, Marcus
Palmer, Arthur
Weitzman, David


Lomas, Kenneth
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Wellbeloved, James


Loughlin, Charles
Park, Trevor
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Luard, Evan
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Pavitt, Laurence
Wigg, Rt. Hn. George


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Wilkins, W. A.


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


McBride, Neil
Pentland, Norman
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


McCann, John
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


MacColl, James
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


MacDermot, Niall
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Macdonald, A. H.
Price, William (Rugby)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


McGuire, Michael
Probert, Arthur
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


McKay, Mrs. Margert
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Rankin, John
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Mackie, John
Rees, Merlyn
Winnick, David


Mackintosh, John P.
Reynolds, G. W.
Winterbottom, R. E.


Maclennan, Robert
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Woof, Robert


MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Wyatt, Woodrow


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Yates, Victor


McNamara, J. Kevin
Robertson, John (Paisley)



MacPherson, Malcolm
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth(St. P'c'as)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Mr. Charles Grey and


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Roebuck, Roy
Mr. William Whitlock.


Mallalieu, J. P. W.(Huddersfield, E.)
Rogers, George (Kensington)

Question put, That the proposed words be there added:—

The House divided: Ayes 303, Noes 238.

Division No. 403.]
AYES
[10.13 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Bidwell, Sydney
Buchan, Norman


Alldritt Walter
Binns, John
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)


Allen, Scholefield
Bishop, E. S.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)


Anderson, Donald
Blackburn, F.
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)


Archer, Peter
Blenkinsop, Arthur
callaghan, Rt. Hn. James


Armstrong, Ernest
Boardman, H.
Cant, R. B.


Ashley, Jack
Booth, Albert
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Boston, Terence
Chapman, Donald


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Coe, Denis


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Bowden, Rt. Hn. Herbert
Coleman, Donald


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Boyden, James
Concannon, J. D.


Barnes, Michael
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Conlan, Bernard


Barnett, Joel
Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Corbet, Mrs. Freda


Baxter, William
Brooks, Edwin
Crawshaw, Richard


Beaney, Alan
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Cronin, John


Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.
Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Bence, Cyril
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard




Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Palmer, Arthur


Dalyell, Tam
Janner, Sir Barnett
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Park, Trevor


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pavitt, Laurence


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Pentland, Norman


Delargy, Hugh
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Dell, Edmund
Jones, Rt. Hn. SirElwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Dempsey, James
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Dewar, Donald
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Price, William (Rugby)


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Judd, Frank
Probert, Arthur


Dickens, James
Kelley, Richard
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Dobson, Ray
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Rankin, John


Doig, Peter
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth. Central)
Rees, Merlyn


Donnelly, Desmond
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Reynolds, G. W.


Dunn, James A.
Lawson, George
Richard, Ivor


Dunnett, Jack
Leadbitter Ted
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Ledger, Ron
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Edelman, Maurice
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kernieth (St. P'c'as)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Waith'stow. E.)


Ellis, John
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Roebuck, Roy


English, Michael
Lipton, Marcus
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Ensor, David
Lomas, Kenneth
Rowland, Christopher (Merlden)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Loughlin, Charles
Ryan, John


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Luard, Evan
Sheldon, Robert


Fernyhough, E.
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Finch, Harold
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McBride, Neil
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McCann, John
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Foley, Maurice
MacColl, James
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
MacDermot, Niall
Skeffington, Arthur


Ford, Ben
Macdonald, A. H.
Small, William


Forrester, John
McGuire, Michael
Snow, Julian


Fowler, Gerry
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Spriggs, Leslie


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)
Mackie, John
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Freeson, Reginald
Mackintosh, John P.
Stonehouse, John


Galpern, Sir Myer
Maclennan, Robert
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Gardner, Tony
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Garrett, W. E.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Swain, Thomas


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
McNamara, J. Kevin
Swingler, Stephen


Gourlay, Harry
MacPherson, Malcolm
Symonds, J. B.


Gregory, Arnold
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Taverne, Dick


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Manuel, Archie
Thornton, Ernest


Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Tinn, James


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Mason, Roy
Tomney, Frank


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Maxwell, Robert
Tuck, Raphael


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mayhew, Christopher
Urwin, T. W.


Hamling, William
Mellish, Robert
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Hannan, William
Mendelson, J. J.
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Harper, Joseph
Mikardo, Ian
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Millan, Bruce
Wallace, George


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Watkins, David (Consett)


Haseldine, Norman
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Hattersley, Roy
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Weitzman, David


Hazell, Bert
Molloy, William
Wellbeloved, James


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Moonman, Eric
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Henig, Stanley
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Wigg, Rt. Hn. George


Hilton, W. S.
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wilkins, W. A.


Hobden,Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Hooley, Frank
Moyle, Roland
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Horner, John
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Murray, Albert
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Neal, Harold
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Norwood, Christopher
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Howie, W.
Oakes, Gordon
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Hoy, James
Ogden, Eric
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Huckfield, L.
O'Malley, Brian
Winnick, David


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Oram, Albert E.
Winterbottom, R. E.


Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Orme, Stanley
Woof, Robert


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Oswald, Thomas
Wyatt, Woodrow


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Yates, Victor


Hunter, Adam
Owen, Will (Morpeth)



Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Padley, Walter
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:



Paget, R. T.
Mr. Charles Grey and




Mr. William Whitlock.







NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Goodhart, Philip
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Goodhew, Victor
Murton, Oscar


Astor, John
Cower, Raymond
Neave, Airey


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Grant, Anthony
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Awdry, Daniel
Gresham Cooke, R.
Nott, John


Baker, W. H. K.
Grieve, Percy
Onslow, Cranley


Balniel Lord
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Batsford, Brian
Gurden, Harold
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Bell, Ronald
Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Bennett Dr. Reginald (Cos. &amp; Fhm)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Pardoe, John


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Bessell, Peter
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Peel, John


Biffen, John
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Percival, Ian


Biggs-Daviaon, John
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Peyton, John


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Hastings, Stephen
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Black, Sir Cyril
Hay, John
Pounder, Rafton


Body, Richard
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Bossom, Sir Clive
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Boyd Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Heseltine, Michael
Prior, J. M. L.


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Higgins, Terence L.
Pym, Francis


Braine, Bernard
Hiley, Joseph
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Brewis John
Hill, J. E. B.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hirst, Geoffrey
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Bromley-Davenport,Lt. -Col. Sir Walter
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Holland, Philip
Ridsdale, Julian


Bryan, Paul
Hornby, Richard
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Robson Brown, Sir William


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hunt, John
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Burden, F. A.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Campbell, Cordon
Iremonger, T. L.
Royle, Anthony


Carlisle, Mark
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Cary, Sir Robert
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Channon, H. P. G.
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Crinstead)
Scott, Nicholas


Clark, Henry
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Sharples, Richard


Clegg, Walter
Jopling, Michael
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Cooke, Robert
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Sinclair, Sir George


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Smith, John


Cordle, John
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Stainton, Keith


Corfield, F. V.
Kershaw, Anthony
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Costain, A. P.
Kimball, Marcus
Stodart, Anthony


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Stoddart, Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver
Kirk, Peter
Summers, Sir Spencer


Crouch, David
Kitson, Timothy
Tapsell Peter


Crowder, F. P.
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Lambton, Viscount
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Currie, G. B. H.
Lancaster, Col. C. C.
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Teeling, Sir William


Dance, James
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Temple, John M.


Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire,W.)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


d'Avigdor-GoMsmid, Sir Henry
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Longden, Gilbert
Tilney, John


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Loveys, W. H.
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lubbock, Eric
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Vaughan Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Doughty, Charles
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Vickers, Dame Joan


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Drayson, G. B.
McMaster, Stanley
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Wall, Patrick


Eden, Sir John
Maddan, Martin
Walters, Dennis


Emery, Peter
Maginnis, John E.
Ward, Dame Irene


Eyre, Reginald
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Weatherill, Bernard


Farr, John
Marten, Neil
wells, John (Maidstone)


Fisher, Nigel
Maude, Angus
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Forrest, George
Mawby, Ray
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro).


Fortescue, Tim
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Foster, Sir John
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh(St'frord &amp; Stone)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Woodnutt, Mark


Galbraith, Hon. T. O.
Mills, Stratum (Belfast, N.)
Worsley, Marcus


Gibson-Watt, David
Miscampbell, Norman
Wright, Esmond


Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Wylie, N. R.


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Monro, Hector



Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Montgomery, Fergus
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Glover, Sir Douglas
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


Glyn, Sir Richard
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Mr. Jasper More.


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House welcomes the policy of Her Majesty's Government to plan airport requirements in the light of all relevant factors, including the effect on the local population, the needs of the travelling public, safety, agriculture and the protection of amenity; and approves their selection of a third London airport on this basis.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question proposed.
That the Proceedings on the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Whitlock.]

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 262, Noes 181.

Division No. 404.]
AYES
[10.26 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)


Allen, Scholefield
Ellis, John
Lestor, Miss Joan


Anderson, Donald
Ensor, David
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Archer, Peter
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Lipton, Marcus


Armstrong, Ernest
Fernyhough, E.
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Finch, Harold
Lomas, Kenneth


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Loughlin, Charles


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Luard, Evan


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Lubbock, Eric


Barnes, Michael
Foot, Michael (Ebbw vale)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Barnett, Joel
Ford, Ben
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Baxter, William
Forrester, John
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Beaney, Alan
Fowler, Gerry
McBride, Neil


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
McCann, John


Bessell, Peter
Freeson, Reginald
MacColl, James


Bidwell, Sydney
Garrett, W. E.
MacDemot, Niall


Binns, John
Cordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Bishop, E. S.
Gourlay, Harry
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Blackburn, F.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Mackie, John


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Gregory, Arnold
Mackintosh, John P.


Booth, Albert
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Maclennan, Robert


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain


Boyden, James
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Maxwell, Robert


Brewis, John
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Brooks, Edwin
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mayhew, Christopher


Brown,Bob(N 'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Hamling, William
Mellish, Robert


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Hannan, William
Mendelson, J. J.


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Harper, Joseph
Mikardo, Ian


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Millan, Bruce


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Buchan, Norman
Haseldine, Norman
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hazall, Bert
Molloy, William


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)




Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Henig, Stanley
Moonman, Eric


Cant, R. B.
Heseltine, Michael
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Carlisle, Mark
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hooley, Frank
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Channon, H. P. C.
Hornby, Richard
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Chapman, Donald
Horner, John
Moyle, Roland


Coe, Denis
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Coleman, Donald
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Murray, Albert


Concannon, J. D.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Newens, Stan


Conlan, Bernard
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Howie, W.
Norwood, Christopher


Crawshaw, Richard
Huckfield, L.
Ogden, Eric


Cronin, John
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Oram, Albert E.


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Orme, Stanley


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hunt, John
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Dalyell, Tam
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Palmer, Arthur


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Janner, Sir Barnett
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pardoe, John


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'Cras, S.)
Park, Trevor


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Pavitt, Laurence


Dell, Edmund
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Dewar, Donald
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Pentland, Norman


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Dickens, James
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Price, William (Rugby)


Dobson, Ray
Judd, Frank
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Doig, Peter
Kelley, Richard
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Donnelly, Desmond
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Rankin, John


Dunnett, Jack
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Rees, Merlyn


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Leadbitter, Ted
Reynolds, G. W.


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Ledger, Ron
Rees-Davies, W. R.




Richard, Ivor
Smith, John
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Snow, Julian
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Spriggs, Lesile
Wallace, George


Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire,S)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Robinson,Rt. Hn. Kenneth(St.p'c'as)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Weitzman, David


Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael
Wellheloved, James


Roebuck, Roy
Stonehouse, John
White, Mrs. Eirene


Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Whitlock, William


Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)
Swain, Thomas
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Royle, Anthony
Swingler, Stephen
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Ryan, John
Tapsell, Peter
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Scott, Nicholas
Taverne, Dick
Winnick, David


Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Sheldon, Robert
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George
Winterbottom, R. E.


Shore, Peter (Stepney)
Thornton, Ernest
Wyatt, Woodrow


Short, Rt. Hn. Edward(N 'c' tle-u-Tyne)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Yates, Victor


Silkin, Rt Hn. John (Deptfort)
Tomney, Frank



Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Tuck, Raphael
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Urwin, T. W.
Mr. Ioan L. Evans and


Sinclair, Sir George
Vickers, Dame Joan
Mr. Alan Fitch.


Skeffington, Arthur
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)





NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Grieve, Percy
Murton, Oscar


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Neal, Harold


Alldritt, Walter
Gurden, Harold
Neave, Airey


Astor, John
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Oakes, Gordon


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
O'Malley, Brian


Baker, W. H. K.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
OnslOW, Cranley


Balniel, Lord
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Batsford, Brian
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Bell, Ronald
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Oswald, Thomas


Bence, Cyril
Hastings, Stephen
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Biffen, John
Higgins, Terence L.
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Biggs-Davison, John
Hiley, Joseph
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Body, Richard
Hill, J. E. B.
Peel, John


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hirst, Geoffrey
Percival, Ian


Braine, Bernard
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Pounder, Rafton


Bromley-Davenport, Lt. -Col. Sir Walter
Holland, Philip
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hunter, Adam
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Prior, J. M. L.


Bullus, Sir Eric
Jennings, J. c (Burton)
Pym, Francis


Burden, F. A.
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Gary, Sir Robert
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Clark, Henry
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Clegg, Walter
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Cooke, Robert
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Robson Brown, Sir William


Cordle, John
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Colfield, F. V.
Kershaw, Anthony
Russell, Sir Ronald


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spolthorne)
Kimball, Marcus
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver
Kitson, Timothy
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Crowder, F. P.
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Lawson, George
Small, William


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Stodart, Anthony


Currie, G. B. H.
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Dance, James
Loveys, W. H.
Symonds, J. B.


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Macdonald, A. H.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Delargy, Hugh
McGuire, Michael
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Dempsey, James
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Dodds-parker, Douglas
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Tee ling, Sir William


Doughty, Charles
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C)
Temple, John M.


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
McNamara, J. Kevin
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Drayson, G. B.
Maddan, Martin
Tilney, John


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Tinn, James


Dunn, James A,
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Eden, Sir John
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Marten, Neil
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Farr, John
Maude, Angus
Wall, Patrick


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mawby, Ray
Ward, Dame Irene


Foley, Maurice
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Weatherill, Bernard


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Miscampbell, Norman
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitch in)


Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Monro, Hector
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Montgomery, Fergus
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)




Wright, Esmond


Glover, Sir Douglas
More, Jasper
Wylie N. R.


Goodhew, Victor
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)



Cower, Raymond
Mott-Radciyffe Sir Charles
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grant, Anthony
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Sir Cyril Black and




Mr. R. Grant-Ferris.

Orders of the Day — MEDICAL TERMINATION OF PREGNANCY BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment proposed [2nd June] on Consideration of the Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee).

Clause 1.—(MEDICAL TERMINATION OF PREGNANCY.)

Which Amendment was: In page 1, line 10, at the end, to insert the words 'a medically unacceptable'.

Question again proposed, That those words be there inserted in the Bill.

10.35 p.m.

Mr. Richard Sharpies: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand from what was said this afternoon during business questions that it is the intention to close a large part of the accommodation available for the public to watch our proceedings. The House should be aware that when I looked outside just now I saw more than 100 people waiting to get in to watch the debates. While I realise that it is not possible for you at this late stage to take any action about this, the House should realise the difficulties which we are being put into by this business being taken at this hour.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that no one is waiting merely to watch the debates. I hope that everyone would rather want to hear them. The point raised by the hon. Gentleman is not a point of order that I can deal with at the moment.
We were on Amendment No. 5, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) and were discussing with it Amendment No. 6, also in the name of the hon. Gentleman, in page 1, line 11, leave out 'risk to the life or of' and insert:
'a probability of death or severe permanent'.
and Amendment No. 7, in the name of the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), In page 1, line 11, after 'of', insert 'permanent'. If I remember rightly, the hon. Member for Nottingham, West was addressing the House.

Mr. Michael English: When the debate was adjourned, I was proposing the merits of Amendment No. 6.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will those hon. Members not staying for the debate leave the Chamber quietly? We have a lot of work to do during the night.

Mr. English: I was comparing the decision for the termination of a pregnancy—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the House is going to conduct itself reasonably.

Mr. English: I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that if the Leader of the House who is responsible for our being here now wishes to break the rules of order I have no objection.
When the debate was adjourned, I was comparing the decision which would have to be taken as to whether or not to terminate a pregnancy with the decision which, to the regret of some of my colleagues, was taken by President Truman to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. Mr. Truman said later that he did not regret his decision because, although it meant killing people, he believed that he was saving the lives of more people by it.
At the moment, the Bill permits an abortion, according to Clause 1, if
… the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life or of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman. …
"Risk" without qualification, "risk" with no preceding adjective, "risk" of any sort, of any type, at any time. There is no circumstance of which I am aware in which a pregnancy does not involve risk. There is no degree of risk specified. I hope that the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) will suggest what he may mean by the present phrasing of the Bill.
The purport of the Amendment standing in my name is to say that "risk" means a risk of 50 per cent. I do not deny that this may not be wholly acceptable not only to supporters of the Bill but to opponents of the Bill. I realise that it is not acceptable to the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles, and it


probably is not wholly acceptable to passionate opponents of the Bill such as my Roman Catholic friends on both sides of the House. However, the fact remains that if one is to import the question of risk it must be imported on a rational basis. The subject is an emotional one. It arouses passionate emotions from both those in favour and against it. I am trying to import into it a little rationality. I am trying to import into it the suggestion that one may abort a child if the risk to the mother is more than 50 per cent. or if the risk to the child being born deformed is more than 50 per cent. and so on; not just any risk.
The Bill as now worded would permit abortion on almost any grounds for the simple reason that there is always present in any pregnancy risk of injury to the mother or of a child being born deformed.
It has been suggested by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles that one cannot limit the terms of this Bill. He has suggested that if one limits the terms of the Bill one will still have the back street abortionist and one will still encourage abortions on other grounds. He has stated that if the Bill is not as wide as possible there will still be some degree of abortion.
There are two arguments against that. The first is that the Bill, as it exists, is not as wide as possible. Therefore, on that argument, there will still be some abortions which are not legal within the terms of the Bill. That would be sufficient in itself to nullify that argument. But in particular, and what is of more concern to me, that argument is immoral. If it is argued that we should alter the law of the land solely on the ground that it is disobeyed, it seems to me that that argument can stretch out illimitably over most of the legislation that we possess. When the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles made this argument for the first time in his speech on Second Reading, I felt that it was one of the most immoral arguments that I had heard in favour of a piece of legislation. I mean this quite sincerely, although with all respect to him personally. If one is to argue that we must change the law of the land because people disobey it, then

there is little in the law of the land that ought not to be changed.
This was the argument that was put. The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles shakes his head, but if he looks at his own speech on Second Reading he will find that he made this precise point, and he has made it subsequently. He has said that if this Bill is limited too much the illegal back street abortionist will still exist. The hon. Member has used the argument that we must not limit the Bill or we will encourage illegal abortions.
10.45 p.m.
What is said in the Bill as drafted is that a pregnancy can be terminated on the ground of a "risk" an unspecified risk. I can imagine that different doctors will interpret this word in different ways. Some doctors will say that "risk" means a substantial risk. They will import into the provision an adjective which is not there. Another doctor may take a different view, possibly because he thinks that it may be to his own benefit. I am not so naïve as to think that there are no doctors who will perform operations because of the gain that they will obtain from so doing. Another doctor may say "There is always a risk. I will perform an abortion." One thing is certain, and this will be shown by a study of other operations of a totally different nature, that it is highly unlikely that every single doctor in the United Kingdom will take the same view of what the Bill means.
It seems to me that in the present terms of the Bill we are saying as a House of Commons that we are handing over not to the medical profession as a whole but to every individual doctor in the country the right to determine what the risk is. We are saying that we as a House of Commons cannot determine it. We are handing over this question entirely to the medical profession. We are not handing over to the medical profession what they have every right and qualification to determine. We are not handing over to the medical profession the question of what degree of injury or risk exists to the life of the woman. I am certain that the average medical practitioner is fully qualified to determine that. But we are not saying that we are handing over to the medical profession the right to determine what the risk is. We are saying that, having determined what the risk is, then


in the event of there being any risk at all, as the Bill is worded, the doctor should abort the child.
I say that the decision of the degree of risk that justifies an abortion is one from which we as a House cannot absolve ourselves. If we are to pass a Bill legalising abortion to any degree, we have a responsibility to determine where the line is to be drawn beyond which an abortion is to be considered illegal. We cannot hand over that responsibility to the medical profession, to every single doctor in the United Kingdom. It is our job, from which we cannot absolve ourselves, to decide where the line should be drawn.
The purport of my Amendment is to say that the line is to be drawn not at a minor risk but at a risk which is greater than the risk of the alternative, to say that a child shall not be aborted if that child may be born deformed—that is true of any birth—and that there shall not be an abortion on the ground that the mother may be injured, but that there shall be an abortion if it is more likely that the child will be born deformed than not or more likely that the mother will be injured than not. One should not say to a doctor, "You will abort on the ground that there is a risk"—that is true of every pregnancy—but one should say "You will abort if there is a definite or probable risk."

Mr. David Steel: The argument of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) has been most difficult to follow. His mistake in putting forward the logic of his argument was not to read the Clause carefully. Everything that the hon. Member has said might have been adduced with force had the Bill simply said:
the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk",
but that is not what the Bill says. It lays down that it is
risk to the life or of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman".
The risk is already qualified.
The hon. Member said that any pregnancy involves risk. Of course it does. If the Bill stopped at that, the hon. Member's arguments would be sound. It is not true, as the hon. Member said,

that the risk is unspecified. The reference to risk is clearly followed with careful specification of the sort of risks which we consider to be within the law for the medical practitioner to consider.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Surely, the hon. Member is not being logical. He says that the risk is limited to the risk to life, but it is also risk of
injury to the physical or mental health".
It might mean anything.

Mr. Steel: I said that. I read the definition in full.
Even if one accepted the point of view put forward by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West, during the whole of the last year, when we have had long discussions with many branches of the medical profession and the legal profession, and different views within both professions, no point of view has been put forward to us that that risk should be qualified by other adjectives before it, which is the substance of the Amendments. On the contrary, strong representations were made to us at the outset that the work "risk" should not be so qualified.
The hon. Member said—I noted his words—that we were not leaving to the medical profession what the profession has every right and qualification to determine. On the contrary, we are leaving to the medical profession what members of that profession consider and have represented to us that they, and they alone, have every right and qualification to determine and that it is not for Parliament to tie their hands.
The medical profession believes strongly that each case must be assessed on its merits and that Parliament must certainly lay down the conditions under which an operation should be carried out but that it is not for laymen to tie the hands of the medical profession with legal mumbo-jumbo when, at the end of the day, members of that profession have to take the decision.

Mr. James Dance: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way—

Mr. Steel: I was not giving way. I had completed my speech.

Mr. Bernard Braine: This debate was opened some time ago, on Friday, 2nd June, by my right


hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) in a speech of compelling force. I am delighted to support his Amendment No. 5.
It is true that the Amendment merely spells out in words what should be implicit in any proper expression of opinion by a doctor who is called in to advise on a termination. Unfortunately, those of us who have laboured through the long days of the Committee stage and who, I have no doubt, will labour through the long hours of the night—are concerned not solely with what doctors think or how doctors act, but with a Bill most of the sponsors of which have shown scant regard for the considered views of the leaders of the medical profession. I want to say that at the outset.
It is possible that my right hon. and learned Friend—I have not consulted him about it—would not have put down the Amendment if the promoters of the Bill had been prepared to accept the advice of the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists about the necessity for one of the two registered medical practitioners to have specialist qualifications or even the more limited advice of the Law Society and the British Academy of Forensic Sciences that the Minister of Health should set up panels of suitable doctors after consultation with the profession.
But such advice was rejected and the Minister ran away from the Government's stand in the debate on the noble Lord Silkin's second Bill in another place and the Parliamentary Secretary's stand in Committee on this Bill, so my right hon. and learned Friend had little choice. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman does not fall into the trap of contesting that statement, since it would have been an embarrassment to him. Lord Stonham clearly stated the Government's position in another place, and the Parliamentary Secretary, whom we are glad to see here, did the same in Committee. Something happened to the Minister in the interval, and he abdicated his responsibility. Therefore, if my right hon. and learned Friend had not tabled this Amendment, I would have tabled a similar one.
An Amendment of this kind might be less necesary if we could be sure that the

vague and ill-chosen references to "wellbeing" we shall be debating later would be removed, but we cannot. The promoters have been deaf to reason and have failed to realise that, if the Bill is to work, it must command the respect and support of those who have to advise on and carry out terminations. In consequence, the promoters have piled difficulty on difficulty and have made what could have been a useful and humane Measure, which the majority of us would have supported, the object of a great deal of doubt and misgiving—

Mr. Dance: My hon. Friend says that the medical profession should be consulted. Since the Leader of the House is here, perhaps he could be asked to tell us why he has given time for the debate tonight when the annual meeting of that profession is fixed for next week in Bristol—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. I am afraid that that matter is outside the scope of the Amendment.

Mr. Braine: The effect of the Bill's handling on doctors is shown by a letter I received a few days ago from two eminent Yorkshire consultants, Mr. G. A. Craig, consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist for the Bradford A group of hospitals, and Mr. John Mander, consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist at York, which reads:
The following statement has been submitted to the 29 Consultant Gynaecologists employed by the Leeds Regional Hospital Board (as per attached list).
There follows a list of distinguished medical men and women.
The statement was as follows:
The Termination of Pregnancy Bill will shortly have its third reading.
We, gynaecologists in the Leeds Region, wish to state that should the Bill become law:

(1). Our present practice of terminating a pregnancy where a well established medical indication exists will be unchanged, and
(2). We do not expect to terminate more pregnancies than before.
Although it may be desirable to clarify the existing law the present Bill goes far beyond this. In our opinion it will not reduce the number of abortions carried out by the unqualified.
The letter ended:
Twenty-six have signed the statement.
Two have assented verbally.
The signatures can be inspected at 1, Mornington villas, Manningham Lane, Bradford, 8.


11.0 p.m.
That letter expresses an attitude which is now unhappily common throughout the country. Yet the sad thing is that both the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the vast majority of the medical profession want reform and amendment of the law about abortion. My charge against those who are responsible for the handling of the Bill and against the Minister of Health because of his inaction, is that they have alienated the greater part of the medical profession.
Against this background, my right hon. and learned Friend is right to insist that the Bill makes clear beyond peradventure that the decision of the two registered medical practitioners in assessing the degree of risk to life or injury to health is a medical decision. He is right to insist that we do not put upon doctors the burden of making social value judgments which they are not equipped to make. Of necessity, in a matter of this kind we are obliged to leave a great deal to the judgment of doctors. They belong to a noble profession. The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) was right; a doctor approaches each case and assesses it on its merits, taking account of all environmental circumstances. That is why a simple Bill providing that the decision is taken by at least one doctor who has had long and special experience of this kind of work would have given a great deal more assurance to the medical profession and a great deal more assurance to the nation than the complex and muddled Measure before us.
Let us consider why it is essential to spell out the need for the insertion of the words "a medically unacceptable risk". At the moment the Bill provides that any two doctors, with the minimum period of registration, with the minimum experience, can enter the abortion industry. Provided that they can satisfy the Minister in regard to the premises from which they operate—he has been absolutely silent on the matters that we could expect to find in the regulations he will have to make—and provided that they can satisfy a jury that they operated in good faith believing that there was some risk to health, the degree of which

is not specified in the Bill, they would have a complete defence.
I will not anticipate arguments which I shall address to the House later, but it will emerge in the course of debate during the night that this is not a Bill which will permit a large increase in therapeutic abortion in the National Health Service hospitals. The Minister knows that well. There are about 10,000 gynaecological beds in the country and there are 60,000 women on the gynaecological waiting list, awaiting appointments. The chances of the National Health Service providing massive facilities for abortions once the Bill becomes law are remote. The Minister knows that. The Bill is therefore a licence to permit abortion on a very much larger scale in the private sector. Thanks to the abdication of responsibility by the Minister and the blindness of the sponsors, the Bill will do little to ensure any change in the number of therapeutic abortions carried out in the National Health Service, but it will give a great deal of encouragement to the professional abortionists in the private sector.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is getting wide of the Amendment, which is concerned with a medically unacceptable risk.

Mr. Braine: Were the Bill based on the kind of reform that the medical profession want, it would not have been necessary to insert those words. It is precisely because of the situation which I have been describing that it is necessary to insert the words which my right hon. and learned Friend has proposed.

Mr. David Steel: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will not make a habit of interrupting speeches through the night. Will he accept from me that the medical profession, as represented by the B.M.A., does not demand the insertion of these words?

Mr. Braine: The profession has asked for many things—

Mr. Steel: Not these words.

Mr. Braine: We will be coming to that later. The profession has been repeatedly snubbed, and if the hon. Gentleman wants me to spell out the facts in detail, I will do so later.
I have a reservation about one aspect of the Amendment, for it introduces an unfortunate implication. Strictly speaking, the Bill may be about what it is lawful for doctors to do, but outside this House it is thought by the general public to be concerned with the right of a woman faced with perhaps the most agonising decision of her life, to decide for herself whether she will terminate the child she is carrying. It is for the woman, as well as the doctor, to consider whether the risk is acceptable or unacceptable.
The words in the Amendment—I must be frank about this; this is the spirit in which we must conduct these discussions—carry the impression to a layman like myself that the doctors decide on the question of what is unacceptable. They do but the words leave out of account the fact that, in the last analysis, after having had advice from the doctors, it is the woman herself who decides whether the risk is unacceptable. The task of the doctors is to advise as to whether a termination is wise from a medical point of view—taking into account, of course, such social indications as may affect her health, physical and mental. However, subject to that reservation, the Amendment is necessary because of the way in which the sponsors of the Bill have failed to match up to the other requirements which the medical profession think are necessary.
I hope that the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel), who has shown some readiness in our discussions to accept Amendments, will consider this proposal. The hon. Gentleman has sometimes been embarrassed by his supporters, and when talking about the sponsors of the Measure I have not always been talking about him. He should accept this Amendment, if for no other reason than because either the Bill carries with it the support of the leaders of the medical profession, or it will become a farce, a snare and a delusion.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): I intervene briefly, not to reply to the Second Reading speech of the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine)—in the course of which he did not make clear to the House his attitude to the Amendment—but to deal with one point he made in his closing remarks.
The Hon. Gentleman suggested that the Bill, as drafted, goes counter to the views of the medical profession. I draw the attention of the House to a letter in The Times of 29th May last, signed by the President of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Chairman of the British Medical Association's Council and other distinguished doctors, setting out the terms of the Bill which they would support and, relative to this series of Amendments, they have no qualifications about the matter.

Mr. Martin Maddan: On a point of order. Is it in order for an hon. Gentleman to read a newspaper in the Chamber?[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman concerned knows that it is not in order to read a newspaper in the Chamber unless it is associated with a matter which he proposes to raise.

Mr. L. M. Lever: I assure you that it is relevant, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Robinson: The only point I wish to make on the question of risk is that the doctors who signed that letter wish to see no qualification of the word "risk". It is, therefore, incorrect for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that the Bill as drafted runs counter in this particular to the views of the medical profession.

Mr. Braine: I know that the Minister would not wittingly mislead the House, but he has just made a statement which is not correct—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Braine: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] May I have your protection, first, in order to put my point of order, and, secondly, to have your advice. The Minister has said that a statement I made is incorrect, and has quoted in aid a letter, which he did not read, which appeared in The Times on 29th May. He has then refused to give way to me in order that I might point out that he is totally mistaken; in short, that the letter asks for certain—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am trying to give the hon. Member some guidance, and to help the House. The right hon. Gentleman was not giving way, because he had ended his remarks. The


correct practice is for the hon. Gentleman to ask the Minister before he sits down. As the hon. Gentleman was in some doubt about what was happening, I will assume that he is now making his intervention before the right hon. Gentleman sat down.

Mr. Braine: Then may I address my remarks to the Minister before he sits down, Mr. Deputy Speaker? He must be aware that Sir John Peel and his co-signatories said that the Bill would be acceptable to them only if two requirements were met. One was that the termination of pregnancy should be carried out by or be under the supervision of a registered medical practitioner holding an appointment as a consultant under the National Health Service or by a registered medical practitioner approved for this purpose by the Minister. The Minister is aware that not only has the House rejected that suggestion, on his advice, but that he has completely misled the House, and I hope that he will withdraw what he said.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. St. John-Stevas.

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: Some curious things are happening this evening. By a curious irony, which the Leader of the House has achieved, we are having this debate on abortion on the Feast of St. Peter and St. Paul. We have, I think, St. Peter on our side, and we may have St. Paul as well. Another curious thing is that the sponsor of the Bill has replied to my Amendment before I have even spoken on it. Thirdly, we have had this extraordinary point raised by the Minister of Health which has been so adequately dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine)—which, if he had not dealt with it, I certainly should have done—pointing out that very relevant point of the letter, and the views of the doctors which were scouted so cavalierly by the Minister.
I leave that point in order to turn to the purpose of the three Amendments we are not considering. The purpose is really to tighten up and restrict the scope of the Bill. The Amendments are intended to redress the balance which in the Bill as it is at present drafted, has tilted too far towards the rights of the

mother and away from the rights of the child. Both these rights must be considered, but the Amendments are intended to bring back into the picture the other person vitally concerned, the unborn child.
11.15 p.m.
It is true that we are considering this in the context of a Bill to which the sponsor has put down an Amendment to delete "well-being". It would improve the Bill greatly if that were done. With the deletion of the word "well-being", these Amendments do not become as vital in one sense as they were when they were originally tabled. However, there are two points which should be made. First, the Amendment in the name of the sponsor of the Bill may not be passed by the House. Second, the Amendments to delete "well-being" vary greatly in scope, and there will still be the part in the Bill which says that the total environment of the woman has to be considered. So that, even if the word "well-being" is deleted, these Amendments will still retain a considerable relevance, and the Amendment tabled by the sponsor of the Bill puts in other words which enable the health of any existing children of the family to be considered as an alternative and separate ground for abortion.
The Amendment moved by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) specifies that the risk to the life or health of the mother which justifies abortion must be a medically unacceptable risk, and the virtue of the Amendment is that it restricts the judgment which doctors have to take to one which they are competent to take, on strictly medical grounds.
In applying that test, the discretion of the individual doctor must come in, and that is perfectly right. All along, we must consider the position of the medical profession, because it is that profession which has to operate the Measure. What a medically unacceptable risk is, in practice, must be worked out by the experience of the medical profession itself.
The virtue of putting those words into the Bill is that it is elastic. It is capable of expansion with the advance of medical knowledge and, at the same time, it is capable of contraction, if that is necessary. To give an example of the way


in which medical practice changes in regard to risk, in the past, there was no doubt amongst the majority of doctors that a schizophrenic illness occurring after pregnancy carried a prognosis which was not at all good. It was generally accepted that such an illness was made much worse by the pregnancy. But medical practice on that is changing. Dr. Meyer Sim, the consultant psychiatrist to the United Birmingham Hospital, told the Medical Advisers' Conference of that hospital in May of last year:
In 1951 I was called to see a patient of my colleague. She was a schizophrenic lady who had been in a mental hospital for 18 months. Her husband felt she was not getting better, and had taken her home on his own responsibility. She became pregnant, and I was asked to decide whether to terminate the pregnancy or not. 'This, of course', I wrote in her case notes, 'is a classic illustration, and one of the few that come our way.' I said that she should be terminated. However, this patient showed some volition and said that she did not want to have her baby taken away. We were surprised. We even thought it was evidence of her mental illness. The only way to terminate her to protect her mental health would have been to certify her and do it against her will—a very unpleasant thing to think of, far less to do. So I said, 'Well, she is pretty had. She cannot be made much worse by her pregnancy. Let us take the lines of least resistance and let her go on.' She went to term, had the baby, and got better. We watched her to see if she would relapse, but she continued well.
That is an interesting and relevant example, because it shows that what at one time may be an acceptable degree of risk, at another time will become acceptable.
If we leave the word "risk" alone in the Bill, it will not be capable of that flexibile interpretation that this Amendment would give it. As a result of his experience in this case, Dr. Sim compiled a dossier of facts about abortion cases, the purpose being to assess exactly what the risks to the mother's life or health in fact of her going to term are. This research has both importance and relevance to our discussion in assessing the degree of risk to the life or health of the mother which justifies an abortion.
The researches of Dr. Sim occupied 12 years. The questions he asked were these: Is it possible to predict whether a woman will develop serious mental illness if in fact her pregnancy does go to term? What happens to the illness when it is treated; is it easily recoverable or not?

The second question is just as important as the first. Clearly, there is no case for abortion if the illness can be treated in a medically satisfactory way. These are medical questions and only a doctor can answer them. Therefore, in advancing my argument on this point I have to rely on the testimony of doctors.
In his paper, Dr. Sim investigated the question of puerperal psychosis. He collected 213 personal cases. This may not appear to be a very large sample, but it is a very large sample to be treated by one person. The conclusion he reached was that puerperal psychosis was virtually not predictable. He said:
We had some most unusual cases. I had a patient who had had five children and one was not wanted. She was then 43. As I had looked after her in her first breakdown, I thought that I would rather treat her psychosis which I knew I could get her over rather than have a post-operative psychosis which is difficult. She went to term and had her baby and had no psychosis. She left Birmingham several years ago but she still writes to me. Most people would say that she must have another psychosis, but there is no predictability.
If one extends the argument further, the incidence of severe psychosis is approximately one in every 800 or 1,000 live births. This means that a general practitioner who delivers, say, 25 babies a year—which is a reasonable average—would have to practise for 40 years to see one serious case of psychosis in these circumstances. It is clear that what to a layman may seem an unacceptable risk may very well be an acceptable risk if it is considered from the medical point of view. If it is said that if there is a past history of such psychosis the risk is increased, I freely admit that that is so, but it is increased by only 20 per cent. to 30 per cent., and that, taking the incidence of the risk as I outlined earlier, is not a very great risk.
Apart from questions of psychosis, there is the further and perhaps most important sub-division under the issue of mental indications for an abortion, the risk of suicide. Again the lay point of view would very often be that the risk of this taking place is so great that there must be a termination. But, looked at from the medical point of view, a principle which the Amendment seeks to write into the Bill, there may be a completely different answer. I again quote from the researches of Dr. Sim:


In the City of Birmingham with a population of a million and a quarter over a six-year period 120 women of child bearing age committed suicide. Not one was pregnant. Post mortem examinations have been carried out, so there was no question of a pregnancy or even abortion being missed. I followed this up with a second six-year inquiry and this time one woman who was pregnant had committed suicide. She was a married woman with two or three children, attending a psychiatric clinic at the time. She needed psychiatric treatment. So in a 12-year period in Birmingham we have one suicide amongst pregnant women and here abortion would not have influenced the outcome.
Dr. Sim goes on to go into details, with which I will not burden the House.[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] This is very important, because these are the details of research, which give some substance to what is otherwise an extraordinarily vague conception.
It can be seen that, from the point of medical acceptability, the risk of suicide is a small risk indeed. That is all I want to say on that Amendment.
Amendment No. 6 goes much further. If it were accepted, the Bill would provide that an abortion could be carried out if
the continuance of the pregnancy would involve a probability of death or severe permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman".
That would be substituted for the risk at present postulated.
Amendment No. 6 would tighten the Bill up in two ways, both of which are desirable. Instead of risk to life, there would be the probability of death. That wording is preferable, because it implicitly recognises what I believe abortion can at best be said to be, which is a necessary evil. It recognises that in abortion cases the doctor—indeed, the mother—is faced with an agonising choice. There is not one life at stake. So much of the discussion on the Bill has proceeded as though it were only the mother who was concerned. There are two people concerned. There is the mother, and there is the unborn child. The whole question of abortion should arise only when there is a clash between those two interests. Which should the doctor save? Is the condition of the mother's health such that the only way her health can be safeguarded is by an abortion?
I suppose that, if one were a completely strict moralist and one accepted two principles—first, that the end never justifies the means; and, secondly, that all innocent human life is sacred—there would be no choice for a doctor in that position but to let them both die. If the life of the child was threatening that of the mother, from the strictly moral point of view there would be no case for taking away the life of the child, if one accepted that innocent human life was totally sacred.
I think that that is a consideration which belongs to textbooks of moral theology rather than to life as it actually is. I would find that sort of conclusion repugnant to both common sense and ordinary humanity. Therefore, the law, as opposed to theoretical morality, in a variety of branches, and this one in particular, must recognise the doctrine of necessity, where an act which would otherwise be considered immoral or illegal has to be considered moral or legal because of the particularly compelling circumstances which have arisen. That is the point which Amendment No. 6 enshrines.
11.30 p.m.
Indeed, the present law recognises that if an abortion is essential to save the life of the mother it is legal. This Amendment is not a mere statement, or a wish, or a fantasy, but requires the establishment of probability. This surely is a sensible addition, because it imports into this branch of the law, instead of the subjective standard of good faith, the objective standard of reasonableness. It requires some evidence to be produced that death would probably result, or that there would be severe injury to the health of the mother. Some evidence of this must be produced before the abortion can be carried out.
It goes on to add the further ground that the injury must be severe and permanent. I confess some doubt about the first adjective, "severe". What does it mean? "Severe" is a highly subjective word, and it will mean different things to different people. On the other hand, I believe that the word "permanent" is reasonably capable of definition, and this is why I have confined my Amendment to the word "permanent", without any adjective. It is a term which is capable of objective verification.
The purpose of my Amendment is to set limits within which the doctor has to take his decision. It is intended to exclude such considerations as whether or not it is convenient for the mother to have an abortion, or for the other children to have an extra brother or sister. It is to relieve the doctor of taking a decision about tie burden on the family, which he is not qualified to take, and to confine him to the decision whether, on a balance of probabilities, there is a real risk of permanent handicap to the mother.
I have been considering this problem from the point of view of the risk to the life or health of the mother by not having an abortion, but there is a further point which must be borne in mind here, namely, that there are risks to the mother in having the abortion. The doctor has to consider this as well, and whatever may have been said by the hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) about the ease of having abortions, in many cases it is neither a simple nor an easy operation, and therefore the conscientious doctor must be in a position to balance the risk from the operation against the risk which the woman will incur from the pregnancy being terminated.
This is a matter for skilled medical judgment. It is an axiom in medicine not to embark on a measure to help someone if it may produce the very thing one is trying to avert, or make things worse. There must be this balancing of risks. The doctor must be enabled to make that balance. This is why I hope that the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) will give the most full and serious consideration both to my Amendment and to the others. I hope that he will be able to accept one or more of them because they are put forward in a serious attempt to improve the Bill.

Mr. W. F. Deedes: I would like to say a few words in support of Amendment No. 5, in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson). I think I am right in saying that this Amendment has not received either the approval, or the disapproval, of the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) or the Minister of Health. Although both

have addressed themselves to this series of Amendments, we are still in the dark about whether they view them with approval or otherwise.
I support Amendment No. 5 because I have felt all along that the Bill ought to be, if not acceptable, at least workable by members of the medical profession, and I think that in that respect the Amendment makes a considerable contribution. It seems to me that it has two marked virtues: one is that leaves proper scope for the medical profession; the other is that it ensures that the doctor is not required to reach decisions on grounds outside his own sphere. Of those two considerations, I regard the second as the most important, but, as to the first, in all our proceedings on the Bill here and elsewhere, I have felt acutely conscious that we shall make asses of ourselves if we try to tell doctors how to conduct their business in too great detail. Doctors and surgeons do not go about their business with the small print of the Measures which we pass here in their mind's eye. The work is not done in that way, and it would become impossible if one attempted so to do it. What they will accept, and what I think we have a right—perhaps a duty—to offer is a broad standard against which judgment should be made. Such a standard is provided by Amendment No. 5.
Moreover, it provides a medical—and to some of us this is important—rather than a social standard. It has the further effect of imposing a sensible and workable limit on what may be done; and by that, I know, some hon. Members on both sides set great store. Many of my hon. Friends will not agree with this, but I have always felt that it would be better to have abortion by consent than a Bill which, in reality, was a sham. A Bill, however elaborately worded, which made it, in effect, virtually impossible to bring a successful prosecution for an illegal abortion would, in reality, be a sham, and it would very quickly be seen to be a sham by a small minority of the medical profession. It would, therefore, give rise to the very sort of racket about which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) spoke earlier. In this sense, again, Amendment No. 5 provides some sort of safeguard, and, above all, it strikes


the middle ground in this Bill, which some of us have striven for and still hope to achieve.

Sir Lionel Heald: I appeal to the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) to appreciate that I am in no way hostile to him, but I must ask him to take seriously the point with regard to the non-qualification of the word "risk". A few minutes ago, we had the galaxy of Law Officers with us, both being present on the Front Bench opposite. If they were here now, I should appeal to them, but, as they are not, I can only urge my own view that, if we leave the Clause as it is, it will be interpreted by the court as covering any risk whatever.
I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that. Leaving it as it is will be like saying, in some other context, "man" and no more. It would be no good saying that the House of Commons thought that it would be a man with red hair. It is a general term. It is essential that "risk" be qualified.
Neither does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that it is not only risk to life. It is any risk of injury. That is as wide as the earth, and I am sure that he does not intend it. In fact, he said that that would not be the effect. With great humility, and in the presence of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson), who moved Amendment No. 5, I can only venture the view that one of the reasons which moved him to say that the Amendment was necessary was that very one, that the term would be unqualified otherwise. I am sure that both the Law Officers—or one of them, at least—would agree. It is a pity that they are not present now. It is so wonderful to have them both here—I do not think we have ever seen them both together before—but they are no longer present, so I must do my best to put the point to the hon. Gentleman. I urge him to accept its importance.

Mr. Angus Maude: I do not propose to detain the House very long, but I wish to add to the plea of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes). The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) has made no attempt to answer the speech of my right

hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson). I think that he must have forgotten that it had been made.

Mr. David Steel: It is true that we are in some difficulty because the speech moving the Amendment was made in our last debate. I have been rereading the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He said that he tabled the Amendment on the understanding that the word "well-being" would remain in the Bill, and he argued that we could not guarantee that it would be taken out. I have put down an Amendment to remove "well-being" and, as sponsor, I must go on the assumption that my Amendments will be accepted. In the light of "wellbeing" being removed, I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument falls.

Mr. Maude: I am grateful for that intervention, but it does not justify the hon. Gentleman in not dealing with any of the points made by my right hon. and learned Friend. The hon. Gentleman replied to that part of the speech made tonight by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) on a subsidiary Amendment, and he did not address himself to the points under discussion in the main Amendment. He said that there was no doubt about the definition of "risk" and added that its nature was clearly specified in the Bill. That is true, but it does not specify the degree of risk. That is what the discussion is all about, and the hon. Member has not addressed himself to the point.
It is not even as if the Bill were consistent in this respect. In subsection (1,a)(i) there is no qualification of risk, but in subsection (1,b) it is qualified by the word "substantial". It will not do to say that it is wrong that qualify risk, to say that it is impossible.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman addresses the Chair the Gallery will be able to hear what he says.

Mr. Maude: I am much obliged, Mr. Speaker.
It is not sensible to say that it is impossible to qualify the degree of risk when this has already been done in one subsection. What sort of situation is likely to arise when doctors, whether scrupulous or unscrupulous, are confronted with an


Act drafted as the Bill is? It will not make much difference whether "wellbeing" is taken out or not. It is true that my right hon. and learned Friend said that his attitude to the Bill would be significantly affected by whether or not it was removed. He said that he and I had put the Amendment down before we knew that the sponsor intended to table an Amendment to remove "wellbeing". But whether or not it is there does not affect the dangers and difficulties with which doctors will be confronted if the Bill goes through as at present drafted, even without the word "wellbeing".
The intervention of the Minister of Health was brief and hurried. He did not reply to the question which my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) asked him, and I and a number of my hon. Friends were not quite clear what he was alleging.
11.45 p.m.
If I understood the right hon. Gentleman aright, he was saying that the heads of the professional bodies said in a letter to The times that they did not want the nature of the medical risk to be qualified. If he was referring to the letter in The Times of 29th May—he did not make clear to which one he was referring—it does not say anything about that at all.

It is true that the signatories did not positively say that they wanted the risk qualified, but they did not say that they did not want it qualified, in terms of its medical acceptability or not. Moreover, as my hon. Friend the Member for Essex. South-East (Mr. Braine) said, they were predicting the acceptability of the Bill on the fact that there would be in it the provision which the Minister's Parliamentary Secretary tried to get into the Bill in Standing Committee with his personal approval. It is a very different kind of Bill since the Minister made the volte face that he did after a disagreement with the Home Office.

Altogether, both the sponsors of the Bill and the Minister of Health have left the arguments of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington absolutely untouched and unanswered. The House is entitled to a better reply from the sponsors of the Bill.

Mr. Charles Pannell: Mr. Charles Pannell (Leeds, West) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question he now put:—

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 180, Noes 98.

Division No. 405.]
AYES
[11.46 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Dalyell, Tam
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)


Allaun, Frank (Salford E.)
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.


Allen, Scholefield
Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)


Anderson, Donald
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Archer, Peter
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Hamling, William


Armstrong, Ernest
Dell, Edmund
Hart, Mrs. Judith


Astor, John
Dewar, Donald
Haseldine, Norman


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Henig, Stanley


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Dobson, Ray
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Dunnett, Jack
Hooley, Frank


Barnes, Michael
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Hornby, Richard


Barnett, Joel
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Horner, John


Beaney, Alan
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Bessell, Peter
Ellis, John
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)


Bidwell, Sydney
Ensor, David
Howell, David (Guildford)


Binns, John
Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)
Howie, W.


Bishop, E. S.
Fernyhough, E.
Huckfield, L.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Finch, Harold
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)


Booth, Albert
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Hunt, John


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)


Brooks, Edwin
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)


Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Brown, R. VI. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Fortescue, Tim
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Bruce-Cardyne, J.
Fowler, Gerry
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Cant, R. B.
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Carlisle, Mark
Freeson, Reginald
Jones, Fit. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Garrett, W. E.
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)


Coe, Denis
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Judd, Frank


Concannon, J. D.
Goodhart, Philip
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)


Crawshaw, Richard
Gregory, Arnold
Kirk, Peter


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Gresham-Cooke, R.
Leadbitter, Ted




Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Oram, Albert E.
Smith, John


Lestor, Miss Joan
Orme, Stanley
Snow, Julian


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Palmer, Arthur
Stonehouse, John


Lipton, Marcus
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Loughlin, Charles
Pardoe, John
Swingler, Stephen


Luard, Evan
Park, Trevor
Taverne, Dick


Lubbock, Eric
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


MacColl, James
Pavitt, Laurence
Urwin, T. W.


MacDermot, Niall
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Maclennan, Robert
Price, William (Rugby)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Rees, Merlyn
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Mayhew, Christopher
Reynolds, G. W.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Mendelson, J. J.
Richard, Ivor
Weitzman, David


Mikardo, Ian
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
wellbeloved, James


Millan, Bruce
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)
Whitlock, William


Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Molloy, William
Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Moonman, Eric
Ryan, John
Winnick, David


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Scott, Nicholas
Winstairley, Dr. M. P.


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Yates, Victor


Moyle, Roland
Sheldon, Robert



Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Shore, Peter (Stepney)



Murray, Albert
Short, Rt. Hn. Edwara (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Newens, Stan
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)
Sir George Sinclair and


Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Mr. Edward Lyons.


Ogden, Eric
Silverman, Julius (Aston)





NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Alldritt, Walter
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Murton, Oscar


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Oakes, Gordon


Baker, W. H. K.
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Onslow, Cranley


Biggs-Davison, John
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Oswald, Thomas


Black, Sir Cyril
Hiley, Joseph
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn, John
Hirst, Geoffrey
Percival, Ian


Braine, Bernard
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Buchanan, Richard (C'gow, Sp'burn)
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Ronton, Rt. Hn, Sir David


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Clegg, Walter
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Small, William


Cordle, John
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Stodart, Anthony


Corfield, F. V.
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Summers, Sir Spencer


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Tapsell, Peter


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Kershaw, Anthony
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Currie, C. B. H.
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Teeling, Sir William


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Tinn, James


Dance, James
McBride, Neil
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Macdonald, A, H.
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Delargy, Hugh
McGuire, Michael
Wall, Patrick


Dempsey, James
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Ward, Dame Irene


Doughty, Charles
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Weatherill, Bernard


Dunn, James A.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Eden, Sir John
McNamara, J. Kevin
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


English, Michael
Maddan, Martin
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Farr, John
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Foley, Maurice
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Marten, Neil
Wright, Esmond


Galpern, Sir Myer
Maude, Angus
Wylie, N. R.


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.



Glover, Sir Douglas
Mellish, Robert
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Goodhew, Victor
Monro, Hector
Mr. R. Grant-Ferris and


Gower, Raymond
Montgomery, Fergus
Mr. Robert Cooke.

Question put accordingly, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 97, Noes 179.

Division No. 406.]
AYES
[11.55 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Clegg, Walter
Delargy, Hugh


Alldritt, Walter
Cordle, John
Dempsey, James


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Corfield, F. V.
Doughty, Charles


Baker, W. H. K.
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Dunn, James A.


Biggs-Davison, John
Cunningham, Sir Knox
Eden, Sir John


Black, Sir Cyril
Currie, G. B. H.
English, Michael


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Dalkeith, Earl of
Farr, John


Braine, Bernard
Dalyell, Tarn
Fisher, Nigel


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Dance, James
Foley, Maurice


Chichester-Clark, R.
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)




Galpern, Sir Myer
Macdonald, A. H.
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
McGuire, Michael
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Clover, Sir Douglas
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Goodhew, Victor
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Small, William


Cower, Raymond
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Hamilton, James (Both well)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Maddan, Martin
Teeling, Sir William


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Tinn, James


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Heald, Rt Hn. Sir Lionel
Marten, Neil
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Hiley, Joseph
Maude, Angus
Wall, Patrick


Hirst, Geoffrey
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. c.
Ward, Dame Irene


Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Mellish, Robert
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Monro, Hector
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Montgomery, Fergus
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Murton, Oscar
Wilson, Geoffrey (Turo)


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Oakes, Gordon
Wright, Esmond


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Onslow, Cranley
Wylie, N. R.


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Osborn, John (Hallam)



Kerr, Mr. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Oswald, Thomas
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Mr. Grant-Ferris and


Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Percival, Ian
Mr. Robert Cooke.


McBride, Neil
Price, David (Eastleigh)





NOES


Albu, Austen
Freeeon, Reginald
Molloy, William


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Garrett, W. E.
Moonman, Eric


Allen, Scholefield
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Anderson, Donald
Goodhart, Philip
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Archer, Peter
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn, P. C.
Moyle, Roland


Armstrong, Ernest
Gregory, Arnold
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Astor, John
Gresham Cooke, R.
Murray, Albert


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Newens, Stan


Bacon, Rt Hn. Alice
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Norwood, Christopher


Barnes, Michael
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Ogden, Eric


Barnett, Joel
Hamling, William
Oram, Albert E,


Beaney, Al[...]
Haseldine, Norman
Orme, Stanley


Besseli, Peter
Henig, Stanley
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Stn)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Palmer, Arthur


Binns, John
Hooley, Frank
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Bishop, E. S.
Hornby, Richard
Pardoe, John


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Horner, John
Park, Trevor


Booth, Albert
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Brooks, Edwin
Howell, David (Guildford)
Pavitt, Laurence


Brown, Bob(N'ctle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Howie, W.
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Huckfield, L.
Price, William (Rugby)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hunt, John
Rees, Merlyn


Cant, R. B.
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Reynolds, G. W.


Carlisle, Mark
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'eras, S.)
Richards, Ivor


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Roberta, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Coe, Denis
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Robinson, Rt.Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)


Concannon, J. D.
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones, Rt. Hn. SirElwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Ryan, John


Crosland, Rt. Hn, Anthony
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Scott, Nicholaa


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Judd, Frank
Sharpies, Richard


Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Sheldon, Robert


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Kirk, Peter
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Dell, Edmund
Leadbitter, Ted
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tlc-u-Tyne)


Dewar, Donald
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lestor, Miss Joan
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Dobson, Ray
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Dunnett, Jack
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Smith, John


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lipton, Marcus
Snow, Julian


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Loughlin, Charles
Spriggs, Leslie


Edwards, Robert (Bilaton)
Luard, Evan
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Ellis, John
Lubbock, Eric
Stonehouse, John


Ensor, David
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)
MacColl, James
Swingler, Stephen


Fernyhough, E.
MacDermot, Niall
Taverne, Dick


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Maclennan, Robert
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Maxwelt-Hyslop, R. J.
Urwin, T. W.


Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Mayhew, Christopher
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mendelson, J. J.
Vickers, Dame Joan


Forrester, John
Mikardo, Ian
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Fowler, Gerry
Millan, Bruce
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)







Weitzman, David
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Welbeloved, James
Winnick, David
Sir George Sinclair and


Whitlock, William
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Mr. Edward Lyons.


Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Yates, Victor

Sir D. Glover: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to delay the House—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Ironic interruptions do not help the speed of the passage of the Bill through the House. Sir Douglas Glover.

Sir D. Glover: Mr. Speaker, this is a Bill in which there is a great deal of interest. One only has to look at the House at this time of the morning to realise that. Many of us have not heard the Committee stage of the Bill. On the last Amendment the vote was taken before the Minister or the sponsor of the Bill replied to the debate—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is an experienced Parliamentarian. The question of the Closure is a matter of the Chair's acceptance or not. The hon. Member cannot question this at all. He knows that.
We now come to Amendment No. 55, with which we are taking Amendment No. 10, in page 1, line 12, leave out from 'woman' to end of line 13, on which I promised a Division;
No. 11 in line 12, leave out from 'woman' to 'and' in line 13.
No. 12 in line 12, leave out 'future'.
No. 46 in line 12, after 'future', insert 'physical or mental'.
No. 13 in line 13, leave out 'and or the child'.
No. 14 in line 13, leave out 'or her other children'.
No. 15 in line 14, leave out sub-paragraph (ii).
and No. 16 in line 14, leave out 'risk' and insert 'probability'.
which are linked together. Mr. David Steel.

Earl of Dalkeith: Mr. Speaker, may I seek your guidance? When we started discussing this stage of the Bill, you, in your wisdom, put down on your list of Amendments for discussion with Amendment No. 55, Amendment No. 48 which, through the whims of the printers or perhaps because of the procedures by which they are

bound, no longer appears on this Amendment Paper. I am wondering, therefore, whether I would still be able to discuss this Amendment in view of the fact that it is a radically different approach to the Bill and has not so far been discussed in Committee.

Mr. Speaker: If I may breach a private confidence, I thought that I had made this clear to the noble Lord. The simple fact is that my selection of Amendments today does not include Amendment No. 48 to which the noble Lord is referring, although my provisional list did include it on 2nd June, because since then the circumstances in which it might have been debated are no longer applicable.

Mr. David Steel: I beg to move Amendment No. 55, in page 1, line 11, after 'life', to insert:
'of the pregnant woman'.
This is a paving Amendment for Amendment No. 56, in line 12, leave out from 'or' to end of line 13 and insert:
'any existing children of her family, and'.
As I would be in difficulty in discussing Amendment No. 55 without reference to No. 56, would it be convenient to discuss them together?

Mr. Speaker: That may be done if it is the will of the House.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: The will of the House is against discussing Amendment No. 56 with this Amendment.

Mr. Steel: Amendment No. 55 is merely a paving Amendment to insert the words "of the pregnant woman" after the word "life" in order that we may come to the later Amendment. Therefore, I am in some little difficulty.
May I draw attention to what I said during the Committee stage when we were discussing this part of the Bill. In Committee, at the end of a long debate on the form of words which subsection (1,a) should take, I said that
as far as making sure that the effect of the words in the Bill will be that for which we hope, certainly I think we should take advice


from Parliamentary draftsmen, and I am prepared to consider whether the Amendment
which was then under discussion
which I think we should accept, may not produce the perfect wording and the intention of this Committee can be better expressed. I am quite prepared to see if we can translate the intention of the Committee into still better terms than we have succeeded in doing in three mornings."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 15th February, 1967; c. 253.]
Since then, I have pursued that undertaking. I have taken advice from a Parliamentary draftsman, and in view of the advice which I have received I propose to make certain changes to the Bill to remove the reference to "well-being" and the reference to "of … the child".
I prefer to make my substantial remarks about why we are doing this on Amendment 56. It is difficult to be in order on the paving Amendment alone. Therefore, I merely say that this is a paving Amendment, and I hope that the House will accept it quickly so that we can discuss the main point of the argument at a later stage.

Mrs. Jill Knight: I rise, first, to move Amendment—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady can talk about the Amendments which are grouped with the Amendment under discission, but she cannot move an Amendment at this stage. We are already on an Amendment.

Mrs. Knight: I am grateful for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. I wish to speak particularly on one of the group of Amendments, No. 10. It is a very—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that we will not have a background of conversation during the debates.

Mrs. Knight: It is a very great triumph for those of us who have opposed "well-being" throughout Second Reading and Committee that at last the sponsor of the Bill appears to recognise that our arguments were good and sensible. It has taken a great deal of effort to make him see reason about this, and it is—[Interruption.] It is indeed a matter which we discussed for many hours in Committee, when the sponsor of the Bill was adamant that "well-being" would remain in the Clause. There is no question that this

move on his part tonight is a very great triumph for those of us who hoped that we would have some kind of reason brought into the Bill.
We are discussing particularly social abortion. It involves also a judgment which, it seems to me, must be a moral judgment. Sometimes it may be argued that abortion is justified on social grounds. For myself, I have made it clear that when medical grounds are involved, I am with the suggestion all the way. We are now discussing social grounds, however, and whether it is right for an abortion to be committed simply and solely because the coming child is unwelcome to its parents.—[Interruption.] The sponsors and supporters of the Bill make constant efforts so that I shall not be heard, but I assure them that they will not be successful because this is an important point and one on which strong feelings are held. There is no question of filibustering or of making speeches which it is not necessary to make. These are vital matters which we are discussing, and we must surely be given time to discuss them properly. Social reasons cover a wide range. They could be trivial. A mother might want an abortion so that a planned holiday is not postponed or other arrangements interfered with.
But they might be serious. Everyone would understand if a mother of 10 children did not know how she would manage when another was due, but too little has been said about contraception. It is absurd to say that a woman today has to go on having unwanted children. There have never been so many safe aids to avoid pregnancy. We are discussing pregnancy caused by inefficient or nonexistent contraception, and the sponsors must recognise that there must be a better reason than just a child not being wanted by its parents. Under the Clause we must weigh social considerations against morality.
A letter which I have received from an experienced gynaecologist reads:
As a gynaecologist, one's attitude is inevitably conditioned by … years of gynaecological practice. It would be wrong to claim that these views represent those of all British gynaecologists some gynaecologists are, in fact, ardent supporters of abortion law reform.
It goes on to say how many:
In this (Leeds) Hospital Region there are 29 consultant gynaecologists, and 28 expressed


their opposition to the proposed abortion law reform and stated their unwillingness to alter their practice if the Bill became law … Another poll of gynaecologists conducted at a meeting in Birmingham on January 21st 1967, gave a figure of 192 against the Bill to 5 supporting while the 26-membered council of the Royal College of Obstetricians unanimously adopted a report, opposing the introduction of social abortion. What, then, are the reasons for this strong opposition to abortion on the part of a section of the medical profession who actually deal with the matter at first hand? Have we private, professional knowledge which leads us to this position as a group?
It would be reasonable to suppose so.
If such knowledge exists, why has it been suppressed from the public at large?
He makes it clear that the reason is that doctors' knowledge about what abortion involves is often painful and upsetting to the women concerned.
Normally, medical men do not talk about this kind of operation because it is very upsetting. But the time has come to talk about it and to try to understand what abortion involves. Only then can we say that it is right to carry it out for social reasons. Far too many people who support the Bill have said, time and time again, that it is merely a matter of removing a mass of cells. They have said it so often that many people believe them. In fact, it is not true. It must be clearly understood that at the stage at which most abortions take place, the child is perfectly recognisable as an infant, with arms, lees, ears and toes. It is no use the supporters of the Bill pretending that all we are arguing about is the removal of a few blood clots and that nobody will bother about that.
In this context we must look at a series of experiments which were recently carried out, notably by Dr. Liley in New Zealand, who is a world expert on inter-uterine transfusion. He, with Professor Scott of Leeds, has been carrying out some experiments about which the House should know. They deal with whether the child in utero feels pain. For some time they have been conducting these experiments, and they now have absolutely no doubt at all that in fact the child does feel pain. For example, they have stuck needles into a child and watched the reaction on an X-ray screen. There is no doubt at all in the minds of these eminent men that the child in utero immediately gave a very violent

pain reaction when a needle was stuck into it. They said that the only reason why it did not cry was the water in which it was surrounded.
These men say that the child feels pain. There may be others—I have not come across them—who say that it does not. Even if there were no proof, even if we could say no more than that there was a suspicion that a child in utero feels pain, then we should consider what we were doing. There are three main methods of carrying out—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is getting a little wide of the Amendment. I am sure that she can bring herself into order quickly, but she is not relating her remarks specifically to the Amendment.

Mrs. Knight: I am, in particular, tying to show why I feel that to carry out an abortion merely for a social reason is a bad thing.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand what the hon. Lady is doing, but she must continually relate what she is saying to the Amendment.

Mrs. Knight: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your guidance.
We must recognise that if an abortion is carried out merely because the child is inconvenient, then considerable pain is inflicted on the child for that reason. While that may be acceptable when the health of the mother is involved, to do it merely because the child is not wanted is, to my mind, a dreadful thing to do.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: On a point of order. Since my hon. Friend has been speaking—and she is making an extremely serious speech—she has been subjected to a barrage of discourteous interruptions from hon. Gentlemen opposite. These have not only been disturbing her speech, but have made it difficult for those of us who are extremely interested in this subject to hear what my hon. Friend is saying.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will leave the matter of order to the Chair. The hon. Lady is making an interesting speech. I will intervene if and when necessary.

Mrs. Knight: Hon. Members must decide whether it is right to have an operation to remove the child from the womb,


and then let it die—and sometimes it takes a considerable time for it to die; hon. Members should have no doubt about that. If that method is not unacceptable when a child is simply not wanted, are hon. Members content to have the second method and, if so, would they consider that more acceptable? If so, they should know a little about the second method which they are asking doctors to invoke, simply because a child is unwanted.
The second method is to dilate the neck of the womb and insert forceps. Then the part of the child that the forceps can reach is pulled out. The sponsor of the Bill has seen this operation and knows what is involved. Have other hon. Members seen it? Do they have the knowledge to make this enormous decision? Is it a wise, moral and kind judgment to say that, simply because a child is not wanted, forceps should be inserted so that they can pull out first perhaps a leg, then an arm, then the head, then a piece of chest—all simply because the child is not wanted?

Mr. Eric Ogden: Would not the hon. Lady agree that the terrible things about which she is talking are exactly the things she is asking me House to support in Amendment No. 27, which is in her name?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not discussing Amendment No. 37 in this group of Amendments. The hon. Lady would, therefore, be out of order in replying to the hon. Gentleman's question.

Mrs. Knight: We will come to that Amendment later.
To do the terrible things about which I have been speaking, there must be a good reason. Simply because a child is not wanted is not a good enough reason.
The third method of abortion which hon. Members are asking doctors to perform—for no better reason than the child is not wanted—is to pickle the child, so to speak; to inject a solution and pickle it in utero. Considerable pain—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not want to keep interrupting the hon. Lady. I must point out that she is going into this matter in very great detail. She must come to the precise terms of the Amendment.

Sir Knox Cunningham: On a point of order. Surely my hon. Friend's remarks are in order in discussing Amendment No. 10. She is giving examples to show what will happen if a child, merely because it is unwanted, is treated in this way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have not said that the hon. Lady is completely' out of order: merely that she is going into too much detail—[Interruption.]—and I would like her to deal with the replacement of certain words, as proposed in the Amendment.

12.30 a.m.

Mr. Simon Mahon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. These Amendments cover a very wide field. We are all interested in what the hon. Lady is saying. If I read Amendment No. 55 correctly, it refers to the risk to the life of the pregnant woman. Is not the hon. Lady pointing out some aspects of abortion which could be very detrimental to the life of the woman concerned, or put it at risk?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is now getting into the debate himself? It would be better to allow the hon. Lady to proceed, and then I can decide what is in order. Mrs. Knight.

Mrs. Knight: I ask the House to understand that my feelings on this matter are prompted by my intense horror on discovering these facts. If Amendment No. 10 is carried, it will mean that at least these things will not be done for a bad reason. It is very true to say that the House in general has no notion of precisely what it is asking doctors to do for a very slender reason. If it were merely a question of scooping out a clot or two it would not be a real case to me, because one might say that the mother's well-being—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. With the greatest respect, the hon. Lady has already informed the House of this fact. She is getting just a little repetitious.

Mrs. Knight: I am endeavouring to the best of my ability to inform the House precisely why I am so anxious that the word "well-being" should be removed from the Bill, and that Amendment No. 10 should be accepted.
The social reasons to which I have referred are not sufficient to justify the things I have described. One can only view with equanimity everything that has been described if it is done for a very good reason. The gynaecologist's view of this very important matter is almost invariably the same. A good gynaecologist of many years' experience will say that in every case he has not only one patient but two, and that he regards the second, though smaller, as being just as important as the first. Even if the baby is unacceptable to the parents, as one gynaecologist wrote to me,
I see adoption as the humane answer rather than its destruction on such flimsy grounds.
He said that because of the horror of what an abortion means. We cannot expect this of gynaecologists who, at this very time, are perfecting the means of caring for children in utero—we all know of the recent case of a child's blood being changed in utero—a technique to which doctors are directing their utmost energy with mounting success. We cannot expect skilled medical men on the one hand to do everything they can to protect the child in utero and, on the other hand, to get rid of a child just because it is not wanted by the mother.
We would be putting the gynaecologist into an impossible situation. A mother may go to the gynaecologist and say, as she could under the Bill as it stands, "I don't want this child—please may I get rid of it? The laws says that I may." In that case, it is important to understand precisely what we are asking the gynaecologist to do, because we cannot ask him to protect one child, and to discard another just because the mother does not want it.
In this context, it is important to recognise the harm which can be done to the mother by an abortion. Again, the harm is only acceptable if there is a good reason. By the time most abortions are carried out, it has become an operation carrying risks. We have heard members of the Committee say that there is no risk. Others have said that there is a risk. It is one of the many aspects of the Bill about which we know far too little.
If one says to a doctor, "This woman does not want her child, so will you

please carry out an abortion?", surely the doctor must weigh up the dangers to which that woman is being exposed. It is not just a question of the danger to a woman's health which arises from the abortion itself, because, unless these Amendments are accepted, a mother would be laying herself open to harm in quite another way. For example, the stretching of the neck of the cervix can cause haemorrhage. It may result in the inability to hold subsequent and much wanted pregnancies. All too often, a woman who does not want a child for purely social reasons at one stage subsequently wants one desperately. It is important to recognise that what is called cervical incompetence can arise from an abortion. It is vital to realise that there must be a better reason for carrying out this operation than we have at present. There are many other dangers attaching to the operation which I will not dwell upon, but it is terrible for a woman subsequently to want a child and find that she cannot have one.
It is true to say that many women suffer serious consequences from having an abortion, not on health grounds but simply because she did not want a child. It can cause her the gravest mental anguish for having brought about the death of her own child. Recently, I received a letter from a woman who said that when she was 18, her father had threatened to throw her out of the house unless she had an abortion. She was taken to a psychiatrist and had to pretend to be suicidal. She had an abortion. After the operation, she really felt suicidal, and she said in her moving letter to me that she has never got over the frightful feeling of loss. She became sterile, and has since had two nervous breakdowns. It is not an uncommon story.
By virtue of this Bill, a woman or girl who did not wish to have her child would be able to get rid of it. People should recognise that it is not a light matter to say, "I do not want this child, but, as a result of this Bill, it will be all right to get rid of it." It must be remembered there are dangers to the mother as I have described, and horrible things must happen to the unborn child.
In my Amendment, I sought to delete the words,
or the future wellbeing of herself and or the child or her other children.


I am amazed that people should so lightly regard the dangers to the mother which I have described. They even take into account some unknown hazard to the other children in the family—a hazard which is not outlined in the Bill in any way, shape or form. In other words, she may be as fit as a flea but, because the other children may suffer some deprivation, she may get rid of the child. It is difficult to imagine what deprivation would be serious enough to justify getting rid of the child. I have sought to make my Amendment confined solely and simply to the health of the mother and not to her wellbeing.
These are matters which it is important that the House should understand. I much deplore the difficulty I have found in speaking. I assure the House that I speak from the heart when I say that these are matters hon. Members should understand and on which they should not shout me down.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Lady will leave order to the Chair. I do not think she was being shouted down, but I hope that she will proceed.

Mrs. Knight: I have almost finished what I want to say. Believe me, if it were merely a question of filibustering, I could go on very much longer. The House should know the facts. Knowing these facts, I cannot believe that the House will not accept the Amendment.

The Secretary of State to the Home Department (Mr. Roy Jenkins): While we may not all share the hon. Lady's slightly obsessive interest in the details of this problem—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think the House is anxious to hear the debate and, I am sure, to hear the right hon. Gentleman. I hope that it will give him the same attention as it gave to the hon. Lady.

Mr. Jenkins: Mr. Jenkins rose—

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Jenkins: I have not the slightest intention of withdrawing the comment in half a sentence which I think was entirely called for by certain parts of the hon. Lady's speech. Although we may

not share her view, I think she is making a great mistake if she thinks that anyone on either side of the House who has studied and applied himself to these matters think that abortion is anything other than a very nasty business which should be resorted to only in certain circumstances, but one does not necessarily take the easy view that she does that an abortion may be for a good or a bad reason.
I must confess that I was a little surprised when, after hearing the hon. Lady, with some other hon. Members, shout "No" to the proposal that Amendment No. 56 should be taken with Amendment No. 55, she then said this was a vital matter which she wanted to be fully discussed. It is difficult to discuss it fully unless this Amendment, and Amendment No. 17, which is consequential, is taken at the same time.
Without going into detail, certainly not nearly as much detail as the hon. Lady went, I want to give some indication of my attitude to these Amendments. I think it reasonable that there should be a Government reply to this Amendment and Amendment No. 55, which will also cover No. 56 and No. 17. I do not thing the House should expert any further reply on those other Amendments.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I happen to agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it was a pity that the word "Object" was heard by the Chair when the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) sought to enter into the merits of what really is a substantive Amendment under discussion, but on this point of order I must also say that if the right hon. Gentleman seeks now to give a Government reply on Amendment No. 56, which I regret is not being discussed now, it would be intolerable if the House was not able to discuss Amendment No. 56. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to reply to Amendment No. 56 he must do so in the unfortunate course which matters have taken.

12.45 a.m.

Mr. Jenkins: I am endeavouring to give the House a view, speaking departmentally and for myself, about the position which arises in relation to this important group of Amendments. My


judgment was that this could best be done by intervening at this stage.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House itself has put the Chair in some difficulty, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) has pointed out. Whether the Home Secretary makes a reply on a subsequent Amendment is a matter for him at the time. He can only make such allusion to Amendment No. 56 as would make intelligible Amendment No. 55. We cannot have a discussion on the one which the House has objected to taking with this one.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understood the Home Secretary to say that he would also reply to Amendment No. 17 which is not called and which is not before the House. Is that in order?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Obviously the same applies to Amendment No. 17 as to Amendment No. 56.

Mr. Maude: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to delay the House further, but I think that we are all in a difficulty here, because the grouping of these Amendments is a little bizarre. We have paving Amendments for one lot of Amendments taken with paving Amendments for another lot of Amendments which are not the same. Unless we sort ourselves out, it will be awfully difficult for everybody.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the House will not spend too much time on this matter. The selection has been made. The House has declared its objection to the Amendments being taken together. We must somehow proceed on the basis of the decision already taken by the House.

Mr. Braine: Further to that point of order. I do not wish to delay the House. If the Home Secretary wishes to address the House in this way, that is entirely up to him. I do not wish in any way to challenge his right to reply in the way that he thinks fit. He has chosen to do this and to rise after only two speeches. This is one of the most crucial parts of the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must intervene. The hon. Gentleman is not on a point of order now. It would be much better if the House allowed the Home Secretay to make his intervention and for the Chair to decide whether he is in or out of order as the speech proceeds.

Mr. Braine: With respect, I had not developed my point. The Home Secretary has intervened at an extremely early stage in the debate—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will come to his point of order very quickly.

Mr. Braine: It is clear that we are to be exposed to the operation of the closure throughout the night. All I am asking is whether there can be an understanding that the debate will not be curtailed as a result of the Home Secretary's rising now.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Further to that point of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot add further to a point of order which was not a point of order.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: On a further point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Merely for the guidance of the House, is it not correct to say that we are not only discussing a paving Amendment—No. 55—but that what is being discussed are Amendments Nos. 11, 10, 12, 46, 13, 14, 15 and 16, all of which contain substantive points?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: This is correct.

Mr. Jenkins: Clearly what I must address myself to is Amendment No. 55 and those which are being taken with it, but I would have thought it was the wish of the House that I should endeavour to give as intelligible a reply to this group of Amendments as is within my capacity, and the House would not wish—

Mr. Braine: The right hon. Gentleman has not heard the argument.

Mr. Jenkins: I think that the hon. Gentleman is getting a little unable to contain himself rather early in the night.

Sir Knox Cunningham: The right hon. Gentleman is speaking rather early in the night.

Mr. Jenkins: If hon. Gentlemen do not wish to have the argument on what I regard as a most important group of Amendments conducted in an intelligible way, one is bound to draw one's own conclusions about their attitude to this debate.
I shall endeavour, and I trust I shall be successful, to keep strictly within the rules of order. As the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) rightly said, there are other Amendments of substance, and what the House has to decide is whether Amendment No. 55, which is a paving Amendment to an Amendment of substance, is to be preferred to the other Amendments of substance which are being discussed with the paving Amendment. There is no doubt that there is a certain difficulty about conducting an intelligible debate on this unless one is able to take the two together, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who I know treats these matters very seriously, would wish to have the debate conducted in an intelligible way and be helped to make an intelligent choice between the different possibilities before the House.
Taking into account these Amendments, and those for which they must be paving—because the paving Amendments would not otherwise make sense—what I understand the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) is proposing is that Clause 1 (1,a) should he amended to read
that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman or of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman
or any existing children of her family, and in determining whether there is such risk of injury to the health account may be taken of the patient's total environment, actual or reasonably foreseeable.
As the hon. Lady the Member for Edgbaston said, this makes a fairly important change in the Bill as it emerged from Committee, but a change which I think should not be altogether surprising either to those who were on the Committee, or who followed the proceedings from outside. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State in speaking at one stage made it clear that while she would vote for an Amendment in her personal capacity, though I would have done the same had I been there,

which produced this subsection in the form in which the Bill emerged from Committee, she thought that it would require another substantial look at it before the House considered it on Report.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles, and those associated with him, have had a substantial further look at it, and I think that as a result are in the course of producing a version of this subsection which should be a good deal more acceptable to moderate opinion on this issue generally. "Well-being", which is a vague and difficult phrase, comes out completely. I only mention Amendment No. 17 because, clearly, if "well-being" comes out in one, it is sensible that it should go out in the other. We also get rid of the difficulty of the rather maladroit reference in the subsection as it emerged from the Committee to the health or well-being—because well-being was still in—of the child itself as well as of other children.

Sir Spencer Summers: The right hon. Gentleman is asserting that we can look forward with confidence to the elimination of the word "well-being". Will he tell us whether the name of the sponsor of the Bill alone to the Amendment is sufficient assurance for us all to assume that its other supporters will follow the hon. Gentleman into the Division Lobby?

Mr. Jenkins: I do not think that that is a point for me. I assure the hon. Gentleman, if it is any help to him, that I shall vote for the deletion of the word "well-being", and so I believe will my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, but this is a Private Member's Bill, with a free vote for everybody, at least I think everybody, certainly on this side of the House—

Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: The Government Front Bench is well whipped.

Mr. Jenkins: The hon. Gentleman really does live in a fantasy world of his own if he believes that to be so.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Home Secretary has made the innuendo that some of us are under some direction or other. Is not that a most improper suggestion?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): That is not a point of order.

Mr. Jenkins: Some hon. Members are getting into a very touchy frame of mind at an early stage of what is likely to be a long night. So far from making any such innuendo myself, I was subjected to an innuendo from the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst)—which, I confess, does not excite me unduly—that the whole of the Treasury Bench had been whipped right, left and centre. If that were so, one could only comment that it looks a bit thin at this moment. There is certainly a free vote for everyone on this side of the House, and I have no doubt that the same goes for the other side, too.
That being so, it follows that I cannot give the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers) the assurance for which he asks. It would be totally incompatible with the free vote, about which his hon. Friends get so excited, suggesting that it must be preserved at all costs. I can only tell the hon. Gentleman what I propose to do when this matter comes to a Division.
As I was saying, in addition to taking "well-being" out, the Amendments also leave out the somewhat unfortunate reference to the child itself. One difficulty about the Amendment in the name of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson)—we have so many before us that it is difficult to be sure of the number, but I think that it is No. 11—is that, while it would leave out "well-being", it would not get rid of the maladroitness of the reference to the child itself. That is the difficulty there.

Mr. Deedes: Later Amendments coupled with it look after that point.

Mr. Jenkins: Yes, but Amendment No. 11 taken by itself does not do so.

Sir Knox Cunningham: We are discussing others with it.

Mr. Deedes: It is Nos. 13 and 14.

Mr. Jenkins: Amendments Nos. 55 and 56 also look after it completely. Amendment No. 10, to which the hon. Lady the Member for Edgbaston spoke, would remove any reference not merely to the child but to any other children. I think that it may well be taken—it is a matter on which the House will form and

express a view—that to leave out any such reference would be to make the Bill very narrow indeed and, I think, not to extend it beyond the state of the law now on the basis of the cases as at present interpreted.
What does emerge from what is here proposed is that a reasonable balance has been struck between those who want a Bill which clarifies the law and also somewhat widens it and those who certainly do not want to move towards what is sometimes called abortion on demand. In this way, we should be striking a reasonable balance and making the Bill a worth while and reforming Measure which should at the same time be acceptable, though not to everyone, to a good deal of moderate opinion both inside the House and outside.
I think that the subsection as redrafted would be technically workable. If I may say so, I feel that there is an illusion in some quarters of the House that, by some mysterious device—a Royal Commission, by postponement for a Session, by further thought, or by a Select Committee—we could get rid of all the problems in drafting a Bill on abortion. Having studied this subject now for several months, and with expert advice, it is my view that we could have all the Royal Commissions, all the Select Committees, or all the Sessions in the world but we still would have an immensely difficult job in drafting statute law about abortion.
In my view, the Bill with the Amendments which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) has put before us is not a mess. It has had difficulties. It has had a difficult Committee stage. There are very different strands of opinion. One may disagree with the Bill as it will be amended, or one may agree with it, but one cannot, I think, take the view that it does not express what it is sought to express with reasonable clarity, and anyone who imagines that there is some formula which would be immensely more clear and satisfactory to everybody is deceiving himself.

1.0 a.m.

Sir Knox Cunningham: The right hon. Gentleman has talked about the extreme difficulty of the problem, and the whole House agrees. Would it not therefore


be an advantage to have the advice of a Royal Commission? Surely that would be helpful?

Sir Myer Galpern: I welcome the indication that there is to be a substantial amendment to the Clause, but I take it that "well-being" will be retained in sub-paragraph (ii) of subsection (1,a).

Hon. Members: No.

Sir M. Galpern: I am grateful. I was not clear on that.
My right hon. Friend said that reference of the matter to a Royal Commission would create tremendous problems, but he prefaced his intervention by saying that abortion was a very serious business. Therefore, surely it would not be too much trouble to refer the matter to a Royal Commission in the hope that it could advise on a method or formula acceptable to all reasonable people?
I am attracted by Amendment No. 15, and shall support it. It seeks to leave out sub-paragraph (ii), which I invite hon. Members to read carefully, because it lays down:
in determining whether or not there is such risk of injury to health or well-being account may be taken of the patient's total environment actual or reasonably foreseeable;
An hon. Gentleman opposite referred tonight to the number of suicides in Glasgow where no pregnancy was noted. Unfortunately, the city of Glasgow has many slums. We are doing our best to remedy that situation as rapidly as possible, but it may be a long process. In my opinion, "environment" can mean largely the housing conditions of the pregnant woman. If we allow the subparagraph to remain two young, inexperienced, registered medical practitioners without any knowledge of the social conditions of Glasgow or any other large city with slums can decide between them that an abortion should be carried out because of injury to health brought about by the patient's total environment, caused by the failure of the local authority or our society to provide decent, reasonable accommodation.
The absence of an inside toilet, the absence of a bathroom, overcrowded conditions in slum property living huddled together in sub-let single rooms—these are conditions that are not

peculiar to Glasgow. We know about Rachmanism and conditions in London and every large city. They are all conditions of environment. Yet we say that two young people who have not been trained in social service, and who have grossly inadequate knowledge of social conditions, are to be permitted, if the sub-paragraph remains, to determine that women seeking an abortion who show that they are living under such conditions are entitled to an abortion.
Looking at the other side of the coin, a woman may have her name on the housing list. A month or so after the abortion has been carried out because of her unfortunate environmental conditions she may be allocated a new house and her environmental conditions transformed from a pigsty to a palace. How can environmental conditions be reasonably foreseeable to two young inexperienced registered medical practitioners? They do not know. It is like a man backing a horse. How does he know what will happen?
Could the sponsor assure us that the young practitioners would call upon the housing manager in Glasgow, London or Birmingham to ascertain the chances of the patient obtaining a house in the near future? Doctors are grossly overworked, and analysing the peculiar environmental conditions and the prospects of housing of the patient would take a great deal of time. It would mean reference to a social worker. Or is the sponsor prepared to say that if the doctors agree to abortion of a woman because of her environmental conditions, the local authority should be asked to provide a house for her immediately? Is the local authority to abandon all its responsibility in this matter? Is the patient simply to be able to say "This is how I am living"? Her living conditions may change within a week or month. Is the doctor simply to say "I agree with you. You will he aborted"?
Many factors enter into it. It is far too dangerous to allow this decision to two young registered medical practitioners. The Minister refused to quote from a letter something which indicated the position of eminent persons in the medical, surgical and obstetrical world. He left out the part dealing with the qualifications they said should be held. It


could happen that two young inexperienced medical practitioners would be making vital decisions on social problems.
The doctors may enter a house of squalor, filfth and dirt where the husband is a chronic drunkard. In three months' time the individual may see the light, sign the pledge and become a teetotaler. Surely a social worker should be responsible for ascertaining whether the woman can be helped before it is decided to abort her, which the Home Secretary said is a dangerous business. Is anyone going to look into the social aspects and make an effort to change the environmental conditions in order to save the woman from having a serious surgical operation? Has the sponsor given serious thought to this? I am sure he has but I should like to know. Has he tried to evaluate the decisions to be reached by a medical practitioner when a woman desires abortion because of her environmental conditions and the possibility of changing the conditions rather than her undergoing an abortion? If it were to be left simply that that medical practitioner should define the conditions when he examines the patient, or when the patient makes a request for abortion, I think we should be subtracting from the responsibilities of the local authorities and the work which they ought to undertake. For these reasons I would hope that the two registered medical practitioners will not be empowered to decide on environmental conditions that a woman should have to undergo the most serious operation of an abortion.

Miss Harvie Anderson: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, I wonder if he would be good enough to remind the House of the size of the waiting list for houses in Glasgow and the number of years the average young couple have to wait for a house and who meanwhile are living in a totally unsuitable environment in which to bring up children?

Sir M. Galpern: What the hon. Lady says is quite true. Surely, in that serious situation in which a patient has aproached a medical practitioner and asked for an abortion, this serious operation, the local authority should be asked to make some special dispensation or some special arrangement to house that

family, if the conditions are so bad as to lead to mental ill health. Surely, before a medical practitioner engages in such circumstances in such a serious business as this some such special effort should be made.

Mr. Dance: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I agree entirely with what he is saying? Many people have come to my "surgeries" in just those circumstances, and one has put their case forward and sometimes been able to get them accommodation. I agree entirely with what the hon. Gentleman said. Does he not agree that it is a good argument for saying that it would be dangerous to allow the abortion where there is a chance of the family going to better, more suitable, accommodation?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the hon. Member will not intervene every time he agrees with another hon. Member.

Sir M. Galpern: I personally welcome intervensions of that character. The more the better. But having support from that quarter, I am prepared to rest my case, and I hope that the sub-paragraph will be deleted.

Earl of Dalkeith: The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary appeared to be slightly critical of those who are seeking to improve the drafting of the Bill, and he even went so far as to say that he thought that those of us who thought they could devise a better form of wording were deceiving themselves. Obviously I am one who, in his eyes, is deceiving himself, but I think it is possible to devise a better form of wording, and I am only sorry that we are not able tonight to discuss Amendment No. 48 because of some strange quirk of circumstances which prevents me from doing so. I am sure that if the right hon. Gentleman had examined it he would have found it helpful.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Had we been able to debate it I should have had to point out no fewer than four drafting defects in it.

Earl of Dalkeith: I am prepared to accept that there were drafting errors in it, but they could have been amended.
I rise to address myself to Amendment No. 46 which stands in my name and which has been selected for discussion


along with No. 55. The House will see, and it is clear, that what I am thereby trying to do is to qualify the word "well-being". Here we come up against a difficulty which the right hon. Gentleman referred to earlier. If the word "well-being" is to go out, then the qualifying words I am seeking to put in will not be necessary. But again we do not know because it is not until we vote on this Amendment that we shall know whether "well-being" is going out. Meantime, one can only hope that words like this will not be acceptable to the House.
If one does have these qualifying words "physical or mental" before the word "well-being", surely it is unnecessary to have the phrase at all for it merely repeats what is said earlier in the Bill. I protest vigorously against the words we are having to deal with. If the nuances of "well-being" can be construed in so many different ways, I am grateful for the suggestion that later there might be a chance that the word will be put out of the Bill.

1.15 a.m.

Mr. Hogg: I had intended to reserve my few remarks for the substantive Amendment to be moved by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel), and, indeed, if he is seriously attacked from any quarter it may be that I shall come to his support then. I find this a difficult series of Amendments, and I would like tentatively to put the views I feel about them and about the paving Amendment as the debate has developed.
As the law stands, a doctor who decides for any reason to terminate a pregnancy, at any rate in theory if not in practice, has to make his professional judgment in the knowledge that he must understand correctly the judgment or, rather, the summing-up, of Mr. Justice Macnaughton in 1938 to an Old Bailey jury which acquitted, and that, if he gets it wrong, he may find himself subject to a criminal prosecution.
The principal change proposed in the Bill is to substitute for this degree of at any rate theoretical uncertainty the fact that, if he gets another medical practitioner to agree with him in good faith, he can substitute confidence that he is

acting within at any rate the criminal law in terminating a pregnancy.
I have already said that, to that extent, I am sure that, provided that there are proper safeguards, this is an advance and it is an assistance to a professional man in deciding what must be for him both a painful and a difficult professional choice. It is quite proper that the great majority of hon. Members should be thinking of the mother in such cases, but it happens that the whole of my professional life leads me to think also of the professional man who has to take a decision in such circumstances, and I think that it is right that the House should bear this in mind. I favour this change to that extent.
But the price we have to pay, I think, is that in the first place there must be adequate safeguards against rackets, and, in the second place, it is up to us to ensure that the criteria which the professional men apply are legitimate professional criteria. If they start being legislators or young sociologists or crusaders, then they are acting outside the ordinary ambit of professional judgment.
If we are going to allow, as it is proposed to allow, and with advantage proposed to allow, the professional judgment of two medical practitioners to take the place of the theoretical possibility that a single medical practitioner or more than one will have to run the gauntlet of a jury, we must allow some safeguard against abuse and racketeering and must ensure that the criteria they apply are legitimate professional criteria of the type that their qualifications and training enable them to apply.
I think that the omission of the word "well-being" at the appropriate points will have the effect, at any rate, of satisfying the second of the two criteria that I have been talking about. I have already spoken of the first and I will not go back over that. The difficulty then arises that one has to look at subsection (1) as amended and subsection (2) to see if the question of environment does not go too wide. I think this is a very difficult question to decide; but rather hesitantly I have come to the conclusion that it does not go too wide. I am quite sure that whether one is a lawyer advising a client or a doctor advising a patient one does


in practice take into account his or her total environment in giving advice.
I cannot conceive of a responsible professional man coming to a client or a patient and not taking into account the total situation, although one may apply in the end what is a professional criterion. Even without the words relating to environment in the Bill, I would have expected a responsible doctor to apply them. My belief, and I have a wide and long experience from my own profession in judging the criteria which the medical profession applies in advising patients, is that they would do so even if those words were not there. I have been told, and I believe it to be the case, that some doctors not as familiar with law as they are with medicine are inhibited occasionally in this particular matter from applying what would otherwise be their professional judgment in the belief that lawyers would not allow them to do so in the last resort.
I believe that this is a mistake. If the addition of the words about environment and without the word "well-being", which I would regard as offensive, would ease the conscience of the medical practitioner in arriving at his advice, I would be happy to see them continued in the Bill even though I am doubtful about the addition of the words relating to the other children. I believe that a professional man, whoever he may be, when advising his client or patient, has merely to take into account the total situation as it is—the patient's or client's personality and circumstances in life—even though, when he comes to recognise what the criterion is applying to that total environment, he chooses a rigid professional criterion.
My conclusion, although I have arrived at it rather longer than I had intended and by a different route, is similar to that of the Home Secretary's in this group of Amendments. I thought he was unjust to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight). It seems to me to be proper that the rather painful details of this operation, of which I shall not speak, should be before the House or in the background of the consciences of hon. Members when they arrive at a conclusion about this important matter. Sometimes we are apt to sweep under the carpet

what we do not like to face. I have faced these considerations and I think that the answer lies in this group of Amendments. I had intended to say it later, but in view of the course which the discussion has taken, I hope it is not inappropriate to say it now.

Mr. Simon Mahon: Unlike the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), and as I have pointed out in Committee so frequently, I am neither priest, lawyer, doctor, nor theologian. The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), when I said this in Committee, said that I was in the happy position of having the best of all worlds. However, I feel rather inadequate following the right hon. and learned Gentleman and I would be loth to comment on his erudite advice to the House, except to say this. I recently attended a lecture at Liverpool University—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope the hon. Gentleman will speak to the Amendments.

Mr. Mahon: I am trying to speak to the Amendments, Mr. Speaker. I am coming very quickly to this one point, if I may be allowed to do so. Gynaecologists and others do not often induce abortions because, it is said, they fear the legal consequences. But nobody has ever produced a single gynaecologist to whom this has happened.
Having said that, I want to discuss the Amendments. As I have said, I do not belong to the professional classes and the legal points in these provisions sometimes tie me up, but I do know a great deal about well-being and the well-being of family life. I also know a lot about the total environment of family life. The Home Secretary, I thought wrongly, sought to correct the hon. Lady the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight). When she was dealing with well-being, with the total environment and with the difficulties of this very grave operation, I thought that to call her obsessive was not quite proper for a man in the Home Secretary's position. I am sorry that he is not in his place at the moment, but no doubt my remarks will be conveyed to him—conveyed in all charity; but he should show the same charity to others in the House. I thought


it was proper that an hon. Lady particularly should offer advice on this dreadful operation. We have got to make an adjudication on whether the risks of the operation are less or greater than the effect on well-being or total environment. This the dilemma that members of the Committee were in.
When we are talking about family life, well-being, abortion and getting rid of children, as we are in these Amendments, I wish to say that there are two Members of this House who, if the criteria enunciated here had appertained, would not be on this earth. They would not have been born at all. The environment in which my parents existed was such that when they were bringing 10 children into the world, if the criteria which are being advocated tonight had been applied, we would not have lived in this country and some of my brothers would never have died for this country. Often people have a picture in their minds of an ideal family or a comfortable family. It is easy to imagine a comfortable, well-run, healthy family. 13ut life is not like that.
1.30 a.m.
We have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern) tonight, and I am sure that he will be as interested in hearing what I have to say as I was interested in listening to him speaking about social conditions in Glasgow. We from Merseyside take second place to nobody in that regard. I was delighted to hear my hon. Friend speak about Glasgow.
When we talk about the well-being of of families, I should like to quote what was said by Professor Donald, of Glasgow, a gynaecologist who is, I believe, eminent in his profession. This was what he said about this aspect of well-being and people terminating pregnancies because of the social conditions of which my hon. Friend spoke as part of well-being and part of the total environment:
The object of this Bill, when all is said and done, is that there should be more abortions performed. Its intentions are apparently humane, but most of those women who appear harassed and disturbed
by the social conditions
in the early stages of their pregnancy
and by the pregnancy itself, obviously

come to terms with it later. After the birth of their child, the baby is precious to them.
This man speaks with knowledge of Glasgow. I am sure that hon. Members from Scotland will note this.
He said:
I understand that one pregnancy in 50 is terminated in Aberdeen.
I should imagine that the social conditions in Aberdeen—any Scottish Member on either side, can correct me—are not as foul or as difficult as those which appertain in Glasgow. The professor says that
I understand that one pregnancy in 50 is terminated in Aberdeen.
Why? He then gives another figure and says that
Here in Glasgow, out of 7,500 pregnancies, we have terminated two. No woman has died through a failure to terminate pregnancy, none has gone mad and none has committed suicide. To my mind these facts speak for themselves.
Obviously, there are grave difficulties. I have with me figures which I have amassed during the proceedings on the Bill of the position that we had to tackle, with the highest maternal mortality rate in the whole country. But the highest maternal rate in the whole country was given to me when I came out of the war back to local government and I was told to get on with it.
I was also told by the medical officer of health—and this relates to well-being and total environment—that in the town which I was representing we had the highest infant mortality rate, the highest incidence of tuberculosis, the highest birth rate and the lowest death rate. That was what we had to tackle.
I say this honestly to the House, as we all try to be honest. I am trying to be honest about this. I believe that the intention of the people who sponsor the Bill goes far beyond the reading of the words—

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I point out to the hon. Member that we are not discussing the Bill? We are discussing a group of Amendments.

Mr. Mahon: I thank you for your intervention, Mr. Speaker, and I am glad to be brought back into order. I am trying to talk about well-being and the total environment, which are covered by the Amendments. It may be that I deviated a little in trying to give an example of well-being when I spoke about those


terrible figures, but they are part of the total environment in which people live. Therefore, they are part of the total environment of the people whom I represent in the House of Commons, and the people whom I represent in this House will be affected by the Bill.
Had we resorted to abortion for social reasons—I say this after a great deal of deliberation—and had our minds been conditioned by an easy way out of our social dilemma for these families who were being affected, we would not have worked so diligently in providing the houses and the social services and everything else which results from having the highest infant mortality rate in the country. The 1965 percentage in Bootle, which has some of the worst social conditions in the country, was 19·42, compared with a national average of 19·0—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I can understand the hon. Gentleman being proud of his borough—all hon. Members are proud of their constituencies—but he must come to the Amendments.

Mr. Mahon: I find it difficult to understand references to the total environment and well-being of the citizens of this country—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are discussing not the total environment or well-being of the citizens of this country but a group of Amendments. The fact that they include certain words does not widen the debate as far as the hon. Gentleman is taking it.

Mr. Mahon: I do not want to have a difference of opinion with the Chair. I was trying to talk about the risk to a pregnant woman's physical and mental health and future well-being, and that of her children or future children. Doctors must adjudicate on the words "total environment" which appear in Amendment No. 15.
I have no intention of filibustering [An HON. MEMBER: Oh, no."] Everything was thrown at me in Committee, from filibustering to my Catholic religion, and I will take all that and more, but it is a sad thing when Members of my own party behave as they have done tonight to a man of my reputation in the Labour Party. But they will not keep me quiet. It was our record over

things like environment and well-being and the dignity of family life which made us a Government: it was not fantasy policies—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that hon. Members will listen quietly to arguments which are sincerely held, but I must ask the hon. Gentleman to come to the Amendments. We are discussing not environment and well-being in general, but their relation to certain Amendments.

Sir John Hobson: On a point of order. Amendment No. 15 proposes to leave out subsection (2), in which the factors which will determine well-being include total environment. Could you, Mr. Speaker, enlighten us on the limits of the debate?

Mr. Speaker: I am not questioning the right hon. and learned Gentleman's assessment—I have read the Amendments—nor am I questioning that we should discuss whether these words should be in or out, but we cannot discuss environment or well-being in general. This is what the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon) is doing.

Mr. Mahon: When speaking about a family's total environment and a woman faced with the dreadful choice of an abortion, it is difficult not to stray into these generalisations, Mr. Speaker, and I am grateful to you for letting me go so far.
Before I sit down, I must say that I take the strongest possible objection to the treatment which I have received from hon. Members throughout the Bill's passage.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) thought that if "or well-being" were deleted we should be left with a fairly precise definition for a professional man—
the patient's total environment actual or reasonably foreseeable".
I very much question that view.

Mr. Hogg: I did not quite say that. I said that a professional man has to apply precise professional criteria but that in advising a patient he must take into account the man or woman as he or she is in the environment in which he or she actually exists, otherwise it


is not responsible advice. The criteria must be precise but the advice must pay some regard to the actual situation.

Mr. Fraser: I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend when he puts it that way, but it is the ordinary precept for commonsense. One considers general factors when making up one's mind. But we move into a different sphere 'when it is spelled out as in the subsection, using a somewhat mystical phrase. When we talk of "reasonably foreseeable", we must ask hon. Members to examine their consciences to see how they have misled the country in what they thought was "reasonably foreseeable". Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Prime Minister would give us an example of what they consider to be "reasonably foreseeable".

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know the temptation, but the right hon. Member must not fall into it.

Mr. Fraser: My temptations are "reasonably foreseeable".
The phrase goes very wide. The Home Secretary said that it seemed to strike a balance between the improvement of the law and the creation of abortion on demand, but the more I look at this vague phraseology, which is capable of every sort of interpretation, the nearer it seems to approach the position which the sponsor of the Bill says he wants to avoid. I hope that he will seriously consider the deletion of the paragraph, which goes far beyond the bounds expressed so wisely by my right hon. and learned Friend as the normal precept of common sense. As spelled out, this is a dangerous concept. The paragraph should be removed.

Sir S. Summers: I hope that it will not be an intrusion if a Member who did not sit through the Committee stage and who has not so far taken part in Report intervenes for a few minutes. I wish to protest that the Home Secretary, who saw fit to intervene early in this debate and to start by rebuking my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) for her speech, has not even had the courtesy to remain to hear the comments about his speech.
He addressed his mind to a whole series of Amendments, some of which are being discussed and some of which are not

being discussed. The right hon. Gentleman indicated that the cumulative effect of accepting a number of Amendments would be to meet many of the objections of those who feared the consequences of the Bill as drafted. He felt sure that moderate opinion could be confident in the operation of the Measure if certain changes were made.
1.45 a.m.
I am not satisfied that, even if the Bill were changed in that way, satisfactory results would be produced. We have already discussed the question of risk and it is now to be completely unqualified. Indeed, if there is any risk at all, that will be a legitimate reason for an abortion. We are told that the reference to wellbeing is to be deleted. These are important factors, but I will not go into them now.
An important aspect is the reference to the other children of the mother concerned. The sponsor of the Bill would prefer the phrase
… any existing children of her family ….
Having spent some time studying the Bill from the point of view that it is not satisfactory to rely on past judgments and that the law should be clarified, I would go so far as to agree that there should be somewhat greater flexibility than has been possible under the present law. However, to go beyond that and to say that not only should the effect of an abortion on the mother be taken into account in certain ways, but that, in addition, the effect on her existing children should be regarded as a proper criterion by which to judge the legality of the abortion is, I suggest, going very much further than any moderate opinion is prepared to go at present.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but the House has refused to give permission for Amendment No. 56 to be discussed within the group of Amendments now being considered.

Sir S. Summers: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I am referring to Amendment No. 10, which would have the effect of leaving out any reference to children.

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. He is right and I am wrong. There are two Amendments dealing with the matter he raises.

Sir S. Summers: If Amendment No. 10 were carried, all references to children would be deleted when deciding the criteria that is to be applied. I support that because it would be wrong that an increased number of abortions should result from a consideration of that kind. And if the reference to well-being is to be deleted, this subjection will be slightly less objectionable than it is at present. I was particularly interested in the sincere comments of the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon) with regard to Clause 1(1,a) and the use of the phrase "reasonably foreseeable". It may be said that it is only to be taken into account, but I cannot help thinking that those who put the wording on the Notice

Paper and who wish to preserve subparagraph (ii) would regard it as a far more important criteria to be called in aid than merely to be taken into account would seem at first sight. Though there has undoubtedly been an attempt to attract moderate opinion, I do not think that it has as yet succeeded.

Several hon. Members: Several hon. Members rose—

Mr. C. Pannell: Mr. C. Pannell rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 154, Noes 84.

Division No. 407.]
AYES
[1.51 a.m.


Albu, Austen
Cordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Oram, Albert E.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Gregory, Arnold
Orme, Stanley


Allen, Scholefield
Gresham Cooke, R.
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Archer, Peter
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, w.)
Palmer, Arthur


Armstrong, Ernest
Hamling, William
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Haseldine, Norman
Pardoe, John


Bacon, Rt, Hn. Alice
Heseltine, Michael
Park, Trevor


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Barnes, Michael
Hooley, Frank
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Barnett, Joel
Hornby, Richard
Pavitt, Laurence


Beaney, Alan
Horner, John
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Bidwell, Sydney
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Price, William (Rugby)


Bishop, E. S.
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Howie, W.
Rees, Merlyn


Booth, Albert
Huckfield, L,
Reynolds, G. W.


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Richard, Ivor


Boyle, Rt. Hn. sir Edward
Hunt, John
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Brooks, Edwin
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Robinson,Rt.Hn. Kenneth(St.P'c'as)


Brown,Bob(N 'c'tle-upon.Tyne, W.)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow. E.)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)


Cant, R. B.
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Ryan, John


Carlisle, Mark
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Coe, Denis
Jones,Rt.Hn.SirElwyn (W.Ham,s.)
Sheldon, Robert


Concannon, J. D.
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Judd, Frank
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)


Crawshaw, Richard
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Snow, Julian


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire,W.)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Spriggs, Leslie


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Lipton, Marcus
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Dell, Edmund
Loughlin, Charles
Stonehouse, John


Dewar, Donald
Luard, Evan
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lubbock, Eric
Swingler, Stephen


Dobson, Ray
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Taverne, Dick


Dunnett, Jack
MacColl, James
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
MacDermot, Niall
Urwin, T. W.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Vickers, Dame Joan


Ellis, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Ensor, David
Mayhew, Christopher
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)
Mendelson, J. J.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Faulds, Andrew
Mikardo, Ian
Weitzman, David


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Millan, Bruce
Wellbeloved, James


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Molloy, William
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Moonman, Eric
Winnick, David


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Forrester, John
Moyle, Roland
Yates, Victor


Fowler, Gerry
Murray, Albert



Fraser, John (Norwood)
Newens, Stan
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Freeson, Reginald
Noel-Baker. Francis (Swindon)
Sir George Sinclair and


Gilrnour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Norwood, Christopher
Mr. Edward Lyons.


Goodhart, Philip
Ogden, Eric





NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Oakes, Gordon


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Onslow, Cranley


Alldritt, Walter
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Oswald, Thomas


Baker, W. H. K.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Biggs-Davison, John
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Percival, Ian


Black, Sir Cyril
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Braine, Bernard
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Irvine, Bryant Codman (Rye)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Sharpies, Richard


Channon, H. P. G.
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Small, William


Chichester-Clark, R,
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Clegg, Walter
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Cooke, Robert
Kerr, Mrs, Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Tinn, James


Corfield, F. V.
Kitson, Timothy
Wall, Patrick


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Ward, Dame Irene


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Weatherill, Bernard


Dalkeith, Earl of
McBride, Neil
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Dance, James
Macdonaid, A. H.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Maclennan, Robert
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Delargy, Hugh
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Wilis, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Dempsey, James
McNamara, J. Kevin
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Dunn, James A.
Maddan, Martin
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


English, Michael
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Wright, Esmond


Foster, Sir John
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)



Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Marten, Neil
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Galpern, Sir Myer
Maude, Angus
Mr. R. Grant-Ferris and


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Monro, Hector
Mr. Victor Goodhew.


Glover, Sir Douglas
Montgomery, Fergus



Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Murton, Oscar

Question put accordingly, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 166, Noes 66.

Division No. 408.]
AYES
[2.02 a.m.


Albu, Austen
Ensor, David
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)


Allen, Schulefield
Faulds, Andrew
Lestor, Miss Joan


Archer, Peter
Fernyhough, E.
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Armstrong, Ernest
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lipton, Marcus


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Loughlin, Charles


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Luard, Evan


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Lubbock, Eric


Barnes, Michael
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Harnett, Joel
Forrester, John
MacColl, James


Beaney, Alan
Foster, Sir John
MacDermot, Niall


Bidwell, Sydney
Fowler, Gerry
Maclennan, Robert


Bishop, E. S.
Freeson, Reginald
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Booth, Albert
Goodhart, Philip
Mayhew, Christopher


Bossom, Sir Clive
Cordon-Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mendelson, J. J.


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Gregory, Arnold
Mikardo, Ian


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Gresham Cooke, R.
Millan, Bruce


Brooks, Edwin
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Hamling, William
Molloy, William


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Haseldine, Norman
Moonman, Eric


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Heseltine, Michael
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Cant, R. B.
Hill, J. E. B.
Moyle, Roland


Carlisle, Mark
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Murray, Albert


Channon, H. P. G.
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Newens, Stan


Coe, Denis
Hooley, Frank
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Concannon, J. D.
Hornby, Richard
Norwood, Christopher


Cooke, Robert
Horner, John
Ogden, Eric


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Oram, Albert E.


Crawshaw, Richard
Howarth, Harry (Wellngborough)
Orme, Stanley


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Howie, W.
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Huckfield, L.
Palmer, Arthur


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Hunt, John
Pardoe, John


Dell, Edmund
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Park, Trevor


Dewar, Donald
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Dobson, Ray
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pavitt, Laurence


Dunnett, Jack
Jenkins, Rt, Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Price, William (Rugby)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Rees, Merlyn


Ellis, John
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Reynolds, G. W.


English, Michael
Judd, Frank
Richard, Ivor




Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Snow, Julian
Weitzman, David


Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Spriggs, Leslie
Wellbeloved, James


Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Williams, Alan Lee(Hornchurch)


Robinson, W, O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Stonehouse, John
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Roland, Christopher (Merlden)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Ryan, John
Swingler, Stephen
Winnick, David


Sharpies, Richard
Taverne, Dick
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Yates, Victor


Sheldon, Robert
Urwin, T. W.



Shore, Peter (Stepney)
Vickers, Dame Joan
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Sir George Sinclair and


Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Walden, Brian (All Saints)
Mr. Edward Lyons.


Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)





NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Oakes, Gordon


Alldritt, Walter
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Onslow, Cranley


Baker, W. H. K.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Oswald, Thomas


Biggs-Davison, John
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Black, Sir Cyril
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Braine, Bernard
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Clegg, Walter
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Small, William


Corfield, F. v.
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Kitson, Timothy
Tinn, James


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Knight, Mrs. Jill
wall, Patrick


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Ward, Dame Irene


Dance, James
McBride, Neil
Weatherill, Bernard


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
McGuire, Michael
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Deedes, Rf. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Delargy, Hugh
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Dempsey, James
McNamara, J. Kevin
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Dunn, James A.
Maddan, Martin
Wright, Esmond


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)



Galpern, Sir Myer
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Marten, Neil
Mr. R. Grant-Ferris and


Glover, Sir Douglas
Monro, Hector
Mr. Victor Goodhew.


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Montgomery, Fergus



Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Murton, Oscar

Amendment proposed: No. 10, in page 1, line 12, leave out from 'woman' to end of line 13.—[Mr. English.]

Division No. 409.]
AYES
[2.14 a.m.


Albu, Austen
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Horner, John


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Dobson, Ray
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Allen, Scholefield
Dunnett, Jack
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)


Archer, Peter
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Howie, W.


Armstrong, Ernest
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Huckfield, L.


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)


Bacon, Rt. Hn, Alice
Ellis, John
Hunt, John


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Ensor, David
Jackson, Peter M. (H'gh Peak)


Barnes, Michael
Evans, Gwynfor (c'marthen)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena(H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)


Barnett, Joel
Faulds, Andrew
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Beaney, Alan
Fernyhough, E.
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Bidwell, Sydney
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hu'l, W.)


Bishop, E. S.
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Flwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Blenkkisop, Arthur
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondds, West)


Booth, Albert
Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Judd, Frank


Bossom, Sir Clive
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Forrester, John
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Foster, Sir John
Lestor, Miss Joan


Brooks, Edwin
Fowler, Gerry
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tlc-upon-Tyne, W.)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lipton, Marcus


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Freeson, Reginald
Loughlin, Charles


Cant, R. B.
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Luard, Evan


Carlisle, Mark
Goodhart, Philip
Lubbock, Eric


Channon, H. P. G.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Coe, Denis
Gregory, Arnold
MacColl, James


Concannon, J. D.
Gresham Cooke, R.
MacDermot, Niall


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Maclennan, Robert


Crawshaw, Richard
Hamling, William
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Crostand, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Haseldine, Norman
Mayhew, Christopher


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Heseltine, Michael
Mendelson, J. J.


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Hill, J. E. B.
Mikardo, Ian


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Hobden, Dennia (Brighton, K'town)
Millan, Bruce


Dell, Edmund
Hooley, Frank
Molloy, William


Dewar, Donald
Hornby, Richard
Moonman, Eric

Question put, That 'or' stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Aves 156, Noes 82.

Morgan Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Rees, Merlyn
Swingler, Stephen


Moyle, Roland
Reynolds, G. W.
Taverne, Dick


Murray, Albert
Richard, Ivor
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Newens, Stan
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Urwin, T. W.


Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Norwood, Christopher
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Ogden, Eric
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Oram, Albert E.
Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Orme, Stanley
Ryan, John
Weitzman, David


Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Palmer, Arthur
Sheldon, Robert
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Shore, Peter (Stepney)
Winnick, David


Pardoe, John
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Park, Trevor
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Yates, Victor


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)



Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Snow, Julian
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Pavitt, Laurence
Spriggs, Leslie
Sir George Sinclair and


Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Mr. Edward Lyons.


Price, William (Rugby)
Stonehouse, John



Quennell, Miss J. M.
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.





NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Harvie, Anderson, Miss
Montgomery, Fergus


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Murton, Oscar


Alldritt, Walter
Hirst, Geoffrey
Oakes, Gordon


Baker, W. H. K.
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Onslow, Cranley


Biggs-Davison, John
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Oswald, Thomas


Black, Sir Cyril
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Braine, Bernard
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Percival, Ian


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Chichester Clark, R.
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Cooke, Robert
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Small, William


Corfield, F. v.
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Summers, Sir Spencer


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Kitson, Timothy
Tinn, James


Dalkeith, Earl of
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Wall, Patrick


Dance, James
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Ward, Dame Irene


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
McBride, Neil
Weatherill, Bernard


Delargy, Hugh
Macdonald, A. H.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Dempsey, James
McGuire, Michael
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Dunn, James A.
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


English, Michael
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Fortescue, Tim
McNamara, J. Kevin
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Maddan, Martin
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Wright, Esmond


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Mahon Simon (Bootle)



Glover, Sir Douglas
Marten, Neil
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Maude, Angus
Mr. R. Grant-Ferris and


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Mr. Victor Goodhew.


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Monro, Hector

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I draw to your attention the fact that the figures in the last Division were 156 for the Ayes and 82 for the Noes. It took twice as long to count the 82 Noes as It did the 156 Ayes. In view of that, I make the charge and allegation of deliberate procrastination on the part of those going through the Division Lobby as a means of trying to filibuster and delay. May I ask you to be good enough, if that is the case, and the evidence proves it, to pass some opinion, saying perhaps that in your opinion it is rather disorderly or unparliamentary or something that you might deprecate?

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should be grateful if you would advise me of anything in

Standing Orders which lays down a specific time for counting in a Division.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that the supplementary point of order adds anything to the original one. I have no means of regulating the pace at which hon. Members pass through the Lobby or the mathematical speed at which Tellers count the votes.
The only Ruling that I can remind the House about, and that I must remind the House about, will be found on page 470 of Erskine May:
action in a division lobby which obstructs the proceedings of the House, such as the indefinite prolongation of a division by the refusal of certain Members to pass the tellers, has been punished under S.O. No. 24 by naming, after the Chairman had directed the Serjeant to ascertain the names of the Members concerned.


We come now to Amendment No. 56. Mr. Steel.

Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could we have an interpretation under Standing Orders of "indefinite"?

Mr. Speaker: That will have to be decided by Mr. Speaker when the indefinite occasion happens.

Sir J. Hobson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), sitting in the Gangway opposite, pointed at me, I think—

Mr. Stanley Orme: indicated dissent.

Sir J. Hobson: If the hon. Gentleman was not making an accusation against me, I will not proceed.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) may have been making an accusation against me.

2.30 a.m.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not a place where hon. Gentlemen should be hypersensitive.

Mr. David Steel: I beg to move, Amendment No. 56, in page 1, line 12, to leave out from 'or' to the end of line 13 and to insert:
'any existing children of her family, and'.
Perhaps, with the benefit of hindsight, I ought to have pursued my argument about this, but I do not have the skill of other hon. Members in skating round the rules of order, and so I will continue what I was saying on Amendment No. 55 to deal with this Amendment No. 56. I very much welcome the speeches which were made from both Front Benches earlier. They seemed to endorse the view which the sponsors of the Bill had taken about the final form of Clause 1. I should like to tell the House in a little more detail why we have arrived at this decision.
We were advised that the word "well-being" was not capable of very precise legal definition and that, indeed, in one case in the courts the word "well-being", in a quite different context, had been defined in a judgment as "a state of complete happiness". If that interpreta-

tion were to be placed on the word "well-being" it could lead to a situation where no prosecution could ever possibly be brought under the Bill against a medical practitioner.
The second point is the one referred to by the Home Secretary, that the reference to "well-being … of the child" seemed a little absurd. I should tell the House that this reference came from a very distinguished source, a memorandum of the Committee of the Law Society and the British Academy of Forensic Science, but despite that distinguished source it was, nevertheless, on examination decided that the reference to the "future well-being" and to "the child" should both be taken out of the Bill.
I do not agree with the hon. Lady the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight), who seemed to think this makes some dramatic and tremendous difference to the substance of the Bill. In my submission, and in the view of the sponsors, it does not. We are dealing here with the drafting of the Bill.
I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that the word "health" itself has been defined, in the constitution of the World Health Organisation, in this manner:
The state of complete mental, physical and social well being, and not merely an absence of disease or infirmity.
In other words, health is considered to include the concept of well being. It is also the case that the reference to social factors is adequately catered for in Clause 1(1,a,ii), on which there has already been some discussion, and that is the reference to taking into account the "total environment".
That sub-paragraph, which has been criticised by some hon. Members, has been suggested to the sponsors from a very distinguished source indeed. The first suggestion for such a provision was in a report published by the Board for Moral Welfare of the Church of England. The inclusion of the sub-paragraph was also suggested to us in the course of our long deliberations by the leaders of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the British Medical Association. So there is no question at all but that the sub-paragraph, which has been criticised by some hon. Members, has been very carefully considered, and it has been introduced on very good authority indeed.
We have decided to retain the reference to "any existing children of her family". Here I would answer a point which the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) raises from time to time, that by having the word "or" we are somehow creating further grounds for abortion. This is not so. If we were to change the conjunction to "and" the legal requirement would be on the medical practitioner to consider the health not just of the woman but also of the children, and all that we are saying, by putting in "or"—"or" any other children in the family—is that the health of the other children and the welfare of the other children is very often a factor in a case on which he has to reach a decision.
I give the example of a case which we discussed with the leaders of the medical profession when we met them to see whether they agreed that this was the sort of case which would be considered by such a drafting of the Bill. It was the case of a family with four children. Both parents had a previous history of being charged with cruelty and neglect of their family. The husband had been in prison from time to time.
Through the skill of social workers, the family had been brought back together as a viable, working and happy unit. But then the wife found herself pregnant and the view of the social workers was that one more child in the family would bring to the ground again the whole of the social welfare they had built up in the family. It could not be said that the decision to terminate in that case rested solely on consideration of the health of the pregnant woman and nothing else. In fact, consideration of the welfare of the family as a whole was essential in the medical judgment.

Sir M. Galpern: Sir M. Galpern rose—

Mr. Steel: No. I have listened at great length to the hon. Gentleman's speeches.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Mr. St. John-Stevas rose—

Mr. Steel: It was agreed by the leaders of the medical profession that such a definition was necessary. It was pointed out that in statute law legislation there is the constant danger of limiting and narrowing existing case law. This danger

has been present throughout the proceedings on the Bill.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Steel: No. I am not giving way.
I hope that the House will agree to the Amendment. It results in a highly satisfactory definition and meets the criticism constantly made in Committee that the sponsors have approached this matter in some sense in a rigid and inflexible manner. I believe that, with this Amendment, we are honouring our undertaking in Committee to look closely at the drafting. Having considered the matter very closely and having taken advice, we recommend this Amendment to the House.

Sir M. Galpern: The hon. Gentleman referred to a case where the significant factor was that it was the social workers who reported adversely on the social conditions of the family—or, if they did not report adversely, then they were primarily responsible for influencing the medical men concerned in their decision to abort or not.
Can we have an assurance that, in every such case where environmental conditions, or the well-being of the children or the future of other children is involved, it will not be left exclusively to two young registered medical practitioners to decide but that they will be compelled by law to call in all the expert social evidence to which the hon. Gentleman has alluded?

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I have taken no part in the debates on the Bill so far, partly because of other preoccupations and partly because I did not consider myself qualified, because of my lack of study, to intervene. But this, for me, is the nub as to whether I support the Bill on Third Reading or not. It may be said that, in a sense, it was on the last Amendment we voted on that there was really the only opportunity for voting on the social clause in such a way as to leave in the criterion which would operate—namely, the health of the mother.
I supported the Bill generally on Second Reading because I believed, along with many other hon. and right hon. Members, that the law required clarification and it was necessary to import


into the law the requirement that medical practitioners should take account of the total social environment in determining whether the health of the mother would suffer if the pregnancy were allowed to run its full term. Once one departs from the health of the mother as being the criterion for determining whether the pregnancy should be ended, it seems to me that at that point certainty departs and it no longer becomes a matter upon which medical practitioners can properly use their judgment.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) has gone some way to meet the objections of the many people, both inside and outside the House, who have felt that the door was being opened much too wide by either the original words of the Bill or the words which were introduced in Committee. By removing the reference to "well-being" and the reference to the child itself, he has considerably narrowed the scope of the Bill. However, I must say to all those who are anxious to see this Bill on the Statute Book that I for one will find it extremely difficult to support it on Third Reading if this reference to the other children remains in.
I see the force of the circumstances of the individual case which the hon. Member has described to the House where clearly the other children are relevant and do become a consideration. But the question which we have to decide is whether this is a sufficient consideration to justify the ending of the pregnancy, or, in other words, whether it is a consideration which ought to be open to doctors and people concerned to allow them to procure an abortion without running the risk of a criminal prosecution. I am bound to say that I do not think it is. There may be cases where social workers would say, "I wish that this child might not be born because I think the family would have a better hope of standing together." I do not believe that this is a judgment which medical men can or ought to be asked to make. It is not a duty which we should impose on them. I believe that the Bill would achieve most of the purpose of the promoters and would gain very wide acceptance throughout the

country if it were passed without these words in it.
As I understand there can in fact be two votes on this Amendment, one to leave out the words and one that the extra words should be added, I hope that hon. and right hon. Members who have hitherto supported the Bill may feel it right to vote to leave out the words proposed to be left out in the Amendment but not support the addition of the extra words.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: On a point of order. Is it true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) has said, that it will be possible to have two votes on Amendment 56?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is perfectly correct. The first question will be for the House to decide whether the words proposed to be left out should stand part. Then there will be a second vote whether the other words should be inserted.

Mr. Deedes: I share the view which has been expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin), but that is not the principal point to which I want to address myself. The Amendment has been described by my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) as seeking to remove the final flaw. I think we all accept that this is a very important proposal which we have to consider. The point to which I think it is fair to refer will not be within the knowledge of hon. Members who were not on the Standing Committee. To my knowledge this is the seventh or eighth attempt to get this crucial part of the Bill into a form acceptable to hon. Members of this House. This consideration gives me considerable misgivings. Indeed, it is now my main source of disquiet.
2.45 a.m.
The Home Secretary, when he referred earlier to the paving Amendments to this principal Amendment, said, I think fairly, that this was now a good deal more acceptable to moderate opinion. He felt that a reasonable balance had been reached. I do not think that is a view that many of us would be inclined to quarrel with. We appreciate the efforts that have been made to accommodate the views of those of us who stand on


the middle ground with a view to making the Bill acceptable.
But on this Amendment a wider consideration arises. It is the consequence of having, not once or twice, but seven or eight times, altered the wording of the Bill to what we hope may be the final form. I would be more open to conviction that this was not only the final but the right form if I had not spent 12 sittings for upwards of 30 hours on all the preceding changes to this part of the Bill. Indeed, when we come to the second part of the Amendment, that is to say, the inclusion of the reference to existing children—we heard what my hon. Friend has just said about it and the misgivings that ethers will share—we must realise that although this may have been more acceptable to moderate opinion, it is by no means accepted by all as the last word.
I followed what the Home Secretary said about the Royal Commission and all the rest of it. I realise that no form of words will ever be devised which will be acceptable to all hon. Members. But what troubles me is whether, in seeking a form of words which is generally agreeable—that, I think we have got—we have, in fact, got a form of words which is soundly based. On this I have very strong reservations indeed.
I welcome the first part of the Amendment which leaves out the words to which many people object. I do not accept the proposed insertion, and I shall act accordingly. But it is at this stage that we should ask ourselves where we are getting to in the continual changing of the words at the crucial point of this Bill.

Sir D. Glover: I am sure that all hon. Members have listened with a great, deal of sympathy and interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) in his first contribution to the debate. I am in the same position, which is rather strange in a debate of this kind.
I do not think that we ought to give to the doctor the responsibility of deciding on the well-being of the child or the other children of the mother. I do not see how a doctor can take these matters into account any better than any other person can. I do not see how he can make an objective judgment. He is not necessarily a trained welfare worker. As soon as we get away from the question

of a medical judgment, the field that we open up is so wide that we are getting down to abortion on demand.
I would like to bring the House back to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight). I used this expression in another connotation. We are tonight debating two sets of lives. One set of lives—the mother—will be only too vocal and able to express and defend its interests and put pressure on Members of Parliament, but the unborn child, the other set of lives, will never be able to bring any pressure to bear. There is no lobby of the unborn child, because by its very nature it is unable to speak for itself.
I have no hesitation in saying that if I were a doctor I would put the interests of the mother before those of the child. I know that in saying this I probably speak against the views of many Roman Catholics, who think that the unborn child's life is even more valuable than that of the mother, because it is a life without sin and it is also—[Interruption.] I am told that that is not what Roman Catholics think; I hope not, because I think that the mother's life is far more important.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: It is not correct to say that Roman Catholics think that the life of the child is even more important. Not at all. Who are we to make any judgment?

Sir D. Glover: I am glad that the theologians on our side have been able to put me right on a point of fact or faith.
Once we begin to take in the question of the well-being of the remainder of the family, their environment and the other children, we come to something which is beyond anyone's ability to assess. An hon. Member said humorously a little earlier that the Government are always making mistakes in their assessment of future conditions, and that might apply even to Conservative Governments. I am not making a party point.
What are future conditions? How long do they last? What is the basis of squalor below which a doctor recommends that the pregnancy should be terminated? If the conditions are that much better, at what level does he recommend that it be not terminated? This is an


entirely subjective judgment. For example, should there be abortions in Glasgow because conditions there are worse than those of Bootle? Are the conditions in Bootle that much better that children there should be allowed to live?
On what basis are doctors to make this judgment? On what basis do they have training to make the judgment? How does a doctor know that the conditions in the family and in the environment will not change dramatically for the better in a few weeks' or months' time? As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern) said earlier, a family might be allocated a council house, with the result that its whole environment dramatically alters overnight.
The husband might have a substantial win on a football pool with the result that the whole financial environment of the family is altered. That might happen a week after his wife has been aborted. A week later, the husband might discover that his wife is now sterile and that their chance of having a family has gone. They might desperately want a child, but they are prevented from having one because of the decision taken by the doctor. The doctor might tell the woman that her conditions were very bad and ask whether he should terminate the pregnancy the woman, in her distress might agree, and then it would be done—

Mr. Robert Cooke: It is most unlikely that the doctor would make that suggestion.

3.0 a.m.

Sir D. Glover: That is not so, with respect. Neither my hon. Friend nor I can make a final decision, because neither of us can vet all the doctors, but a doctor with a panel in good environmental conditions would probably have to make this decision rarely, whereas another, looking after an area of bad conditions, would be under great pressure to do so—

Mr. Cooke: My hon. Friend said that the doctor would make the suggestion to the mother and he is now shifting his ground.

Sir D. Glover: I am not. A doctor with a panel in a bad environment would be only too likely to suggest abortion as being in the woman's interests. He would be expected to, on medical grounds—

Mr. Dance: Six weeks or a month

after abortion on those grounds, might not a man be posted from a congested town to another job which would enable him to get a reasonable house?

Sir D. Glover: I thank my hon. Friend. This is exactly my point, that a doctor would objectively assess an environment which might change dramatically within days.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston had no need to apologise, and the Home Secretary's criticism was grossly arrogant and pompous. It is right in a debate like this that we who are not experts should be told brutally and frankly what happens when an abortion takes place. We would be wrong to decide this matter without having heard her speech. It is easy to decide to abort a woman if there is no risk, but one is getting rid not of a piece of gristle but of a living organism. Many children, when aborted, are trying to breathe, even if only 13 weeks old. Do not hon. Members consider significant the unease and distaste expressed by the whole medical profession about legalising this process? It is against all their teaching. The doctor's whole teaching is that of saving life and under the Bill he is encouraged to destroy life. That is our dilemma as hon. Members. I would give him permission to do it if he were destroying one life in order to save another, but I am not prepared to give him permission to destroy a life just because it might be better for little Douglas who would have slightly better home conditions because there was one fewer mouth to feed. There are plenty of contraceptives, and the mother could have appreciated the situation before the event took place. I do not think that a baby of 13 weeks in the mother's womb should be destroyed because temporarily, or even permanently, that would be to the environmental advantage of the four children already living.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: The hon. Member is straying from the terms of the Clause, as it would read if the Amendment were accepted. The governing words are risk
of injury to the physical or mental health … of her other children.
This meets the hon. Member's suggestion that it is merely a matter of environmental conditions. I see no reason why, when a Member intervenes, briefly, he


should be met by a waving of arms by the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald). It is obvious that some hon. Members opposite do not want to hear another point of view and—

Mr. Hogg: On a point of order. I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) had the attention of the House and that all the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) was seeking to do was to intervene in his speech. I submit that if the right hon. Gentleman is to get into an altercation with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald), we shall get hopelessly out of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) was making an intervention and he may continue.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: On a point of order. Is it out of order to wave one's arms?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope so.

Sir D. Glover: I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman's intervention was. With all his side kicks at my hon. Friends, I did not grasp its meaning. I apologise to him and will continue my speech. He waves his arms. If that is the way in which he treats me when I have courteously given way to him, then it will be a long time before anyone on this side of the House gives way to him again.

Mr. James A. Dunn: We all want to hear the arguments, both for and against. Not to pay attention when an hon. Member intervenes is not only discourteous but shows a lack of understanding of the problem. I am sure that my right hon. Friend's intervention would have been helpful to us. I should have appreciated being told the exact words of the Clause, as amended.

Sir D. Glover: I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I will try to get back to my speech, which, as a result of interventions, is in tatters. When I refer to environment and physical well-being I include such things as accommodation, the amount of money on which the person concerned must live and other environ-

mental considerations. But if these things are to be considered when a decision about an abortion is being made, they cannot be properly considered under the Bill as drafted.
A doctor is trained in a valuable and important skill, but he is not necessarily able to assess the environmental conditions in which people live—certainly not in the way the Bill requires him to assess them. Doctors are not, in this context, social workers and housing managers. In any case, one woman may be a good manager, able to run her household well on a small income, while another may be a bad manager, not able to run her household well on a larger income. Doctors should not be given this responsibility of assessing whether a woman should be aborted.
Certainly we must take steps to see that women at risk are not placed in jeopardy. Later we can go into the question of abnormality in children, a terrifyingly difficult problem, but while we are discussing the question of environment, the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) must accept that the Bill is still not right. After all, this is the seventh or eighth time that this provision has been re-written. Is it right now? Perhaps the ninth try will be better. Or perhaps the seventh, or second, attempt was the right answer.
I have enormous admiration for the guts and courage of the hon. Gentleman in piloting this Measure through. I hope that, just because I am saying certain things about him and the Bill, he will not think that I do not have much respect and admiration for him. But he must accept that since so many attempts have been made to get this form of words right, there is no reason to think that the provision is now in its best form. I am therefore left in great doubt whether, even at this stage—and I do not accept what the Home Secretary said tonight; I thought that he was very arrogant to the House—as this Clause is the meat of the Bill, because there would be very little controversy over a Clause which just gave doctors the right to terminate pregnancy—

Mr. Biggs-Davison: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member, even though the hon. Member is an hon. Friend of mine, to read a newspaper?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): It has been laid down on a number of occasions that it is out of order to read newspapers in the Chamber.

Mr. John Wells: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was reading this evening's Evening Standard, page 18, which would seem to me to be relevant to the debate, and I was just refreshing my mind on the subject in case I should be fortunate enough to catch your eye in due course.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is in order to refer to a newspaper for the purpose of quoting from it in a speech, but ostentatious reading of newspapers here is not in order.

Sir D. Glover: I hope that after getting all the information he can from that very useful newspaper, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) will be able to contribute to our debate by quoting from the article he has been reading. It will give us more information on the subject.
I am influenced by what my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) said about our now dealing with a form of words for the seventh or eighth time, by the doubts expressed, and by the fact that the medical profession is pretty well divided, with gynaecologists very worried indeed about the implications of a great deal of the Bill.
This sort of Bill should not be passed into law in an emotional atmosphere, but only after cold, quiet consideration. I still think that we would be well advised, even now, to ask for a Royal Commission to consider the subject coolly. After all, we are dealing with something that has existed in its present state for a very long time. A Royal Commission could seriously—

Mrs. Knight: Is my hon. Friend aware that no fewer than 535,000 people, a large number of them of very great eminence in the medical and religious spheres, have already signed a petition asking for the Royal Commission that he is now suggesting?

Sir D. Glover: I thank my hon. Friend for that information. Quite honestly, I did not know.
I will be quite honest and say that although I was dubious about the Bill and had not intended to vote for it, I do

not suppose that a week ago, until I knew that the Government were proposing to try to force the Bill through at 10 o'clock at night—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must remind the hon. Member that we are discussing a rather narrow Amendment. We are not discussing the principle of the Bill, or the desirability of a Royal Commission.

Sir D. Glover: With the greatest respect, a Royal Commission would be considering the exact matter that we are arguing about now. Some of my hon. Friends think that I am trying to be funny, apparently, but I am quite serious about this. A Royal Commission to deal with the whole problem might produce something totally different from the Bill. In asking for the setting up of a Royal Commission, we say that, even now, at the seventh or eighth attempt, the sponsor of the Bill has not got the wording right, and that is a matter which a Royal Commission would have to consider. I think that that is in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I shall not pursue it any further.
3.15 a.m.
I think that I have said enough to indicate to the hon. Gentleman that I do not feel sufficiently certain that he has got the wording right and that, when the time comes for us to reach a decision on it. I shall have to show my uncertainty and fear about it by voting against it.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I ask for your guidance about the drafting of this Amendment? You will notice that it proposes
to leave out from 'or' to the end of line 13 and to insert 'any existing children of her family, and'.
I am rather perplexed to know the meaning of the word "and" at the end and to what it refers. At the end of the relevant subsection in the Bill there is a semicolon, which seems to be sufficient. Does the word "and" make grammatical sense? If not, ought we not to put the matter right here and now?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that it makes grammatical sense. The syntax and grammar of the Clause would be quite intelligible if the Amendment were carried.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.


Surely the Amendment is only leaving out to the end of line 13. Is not that the point? May we have your guidance?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It seems to me to be quite clear. If the first Amendment is carried, all the words from "or" are left out, and the House must then decide if the other words are to be added. If they are added, they seem to make sense.

Mrs. Lena Jeger: The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover), with whom I agree on so many subjects, has tempted me to break my self-denying ordinance. Although I have fallen to temptation, I hope to do so briefly.
It must be borne in mind that there will be many doctors who will be greatly helped if the Amendment is written into the Bill. I want to share with the House the details of a case which has been brought to my attention and which has illustrated to me the vital necessity of getting the Bill amended in these terms.
It concerns a young woman with five children who found herself pregnant with a sixth. She was in a state of deep depression, having been deserted by her husband. Her own doctor thought that the pregnancy should be terminated. She was sent to see a psychiatrist, who decided on balance that under the law as it now stands, with all its uncertainties, he could not recommend termination because, in the words of his report,
… she did not seem quite depressed enough.
Knowing how these things work, I am forced to the cynical conclusion that this young woman had not been sufficiently well coached in what one should say to a psychiatrist in those circumstances. This honest young woman was put into a position in which the psychiatrist, being scrupulous and bearing in mind all the uncertainties of the present case law and statute law, felt unable quite to recommend an abortion.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: What is wrong with having six children? I have seven.

Mrs. Jeger: There is nothing wrong in having seven children, but perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to give the House information about this case. This young woman had the sixth baby, by

which time her mental depression had become so bad that, after a few desperate sad weeks, in a fit of complete despair she threw the baby which she had not wanted and could not bear having on to the floor and killed it. The result of that refusal to terminate was that that mother has been in Holloway, the baby is dead and the other children are in care.
It may be said that there should have been other means of support and perhaps the baby could have been adopted, but it could not be because the husband managed to lose himself and there has to be the consent of both husband and wife to adoption. Another complication is that the child was coloured and that is a disincentive to adoption. I do not want to give the name of this woman because she is trying very hard to come through this terrible, tormenting experience. The case has been reported in the local newspapers and I can give further information to any hon. Member who is genuinely interested.
In this House we are confronted with a terrible problem. We cannot always legislate with the most dramatic circumstances in mind. It may be thought that this is an unusual and isolated case, but any law passed by this House has to have application in extremis as well as to the more normal circumstances of everyday life. I should feel it heavily on my conscience if in any similar case in future a doctor confronted by a woman in these circumstances had to feel that the way in which the House had dealt with this Bill caused him to be unprotected under the law in dealing with a case where the well-being of the existing family—which was the overriding problem in this case as the woman felt that she could look after five children but a sixth was the end—and the doctor thought that he would be on a criminal charge.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I explained a short time ago the difficulties I felt over this Amendment. I am at a loss to see how the case described by the hon. Lady would be helped by this Amendment. She said that the psychiatrist refused to sanction termination of pregnancy on the ground that he did not find the woman sufficiently depressed. Would the psychiatrist have been able to judge the health or well-being of the


children a sufficient ground for justifying termination of the pregnancy?

Mrs. Jeger: I appreciate the thoughtfulness of the hon. Member's intervention. In a way he has helped to explain this difficult case. The psychiatrist felt that he had to exclude from his consideration of the problem all the existing five children. It was because of the strain of trying to cope, unsupported by an errant husband, with the existing family that the conclusion was reached—[Interruption.] If the psychiatrist had been able to look at the whole family situation, including the wellbeing of the existing children, he might have come to a different conclusion.

Sir J. Hobson: What the hon. Lady is troubled about is dealt with in paragraph (a,ii). We are now discussing whether a doctor should be able to consider existing children and abort a woman about whom there is no problem.

Mrs. Jeger: We must look at the family as a whole. My approach to the Bill is based on concern for the family unit as a whole. It is a matter of opinion whether it matters that five other people go into care, granted that they are all right and well looked after. The opponents of the Bill have suggested in various ways, and with great sincerity, that considerations of the whole family circumstances are not relevant. There is nothing in the Bill which is compulsive on doctors. We merely want to make it possible. I see the Amendment as making it slightly more possible for all these points to be taken into account without a doctor feeling that there will be a criminal charge against him.

Mr. F. V. Corfield: The hon. Lady has confused me a great deal. She seems to be speaking against the Amendment because, as I understand it, the Amendment is a paying Amendment to delete the word "well-being". The Clause will then read:
injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family".
In this context I cannot see that the Amendment will help the case which she has been explaining to the House. It does not seem to me to have any relation to the Amendment.

Mrs. Jeger: I am sorry the hon. Gentleman thinks it has nothing to do with the Amendment. It has much to go with it. Existing children are an absolutely essential part of the family. I am concerned about the future of the whole family. We want doctors and psychiatrists and anyone concerned with cases of this kind to know that they can, in making these difficult decisions, include in their thinking
existing children of her family".
It would do a great dis-service to all that hon. Members, with very varied points of view, are trying to achieve in the Bill if the Amendment were defeated, because I believe that it has at its basis concerned for the whole family.

3.30 a.m.

Sir S. Summers: I have listened carefully to the hon. Lady and have very great sympathy for the case she related to the House. The Amendment would not be of any real help in the case she described to us. The Amendment would permit the psychiatrist or the doctor to take account of the physical or mental health of the existing children of the family. From what the hon. Lady said, I do not think it could have been foreseen that the state of the mother, or the situation which would arise with the sixth child, would have justified the abortion on the ground of the effect on the health of the existing children. If the doctor thought that the addition of another child would have had such a bad effect on the health of the mother he could have justified an abortion without the Amendment.
I find myself in considerable difficulty in deciding what to do about the Amendment, because it has the virtue of eliminating the word "well-being" which many of us feel would be better left out of the Bill, because if it is not it may lead to considerations of a non-medical character but in the process of shipping overboard this part of the story—which we understand was done to placate moderate opinion—we have at the same time to swallow the additional justification for an abortion, namely, the effect on the health of the remaining children of the family, and for the reasons advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin), I think it is a pity that the reform of the


law of abortion should permit consideration of the effect on the remaining children.

Mr. Dunn: If this is deleted, as the Amendment suggests, the words "total environment" will cover the same situation.

Sir S. Summers: Those words are in the Bill in any case. I am objecting to the proposition that an abortion can be justified because of the effect on the health of the remaining children, and that in isolation. This could be construed as a justification, and I think that it should not be so construed.
Mention has been made of a very sad case, but I can visualise other cases in which it will be alleged that the family is not well enough off to support a sixth, seventh, or eighth child, and this in itself may be regarded as sufficient to justify an abortion because of the effect on the health of the children already there.

Mr. Dan Jones: Is that a reason on which a doctor could adjucate?

Sir S. Summers: It is a reason which will be in the Bill. If it is thought that by having, say, the eighth child, the health of the seven existing children will be prejudiced, it will be alleged that this justifies an abortion.
I have had many letters on this subject, as I expect other hon. Members have, and to show the lengths to which some people who support the Bill are prepared to go I propose to read to the House a letter signed by a man and his wife. They say:
I hope you are going to support this Bill, because the population is much too large, and until contraceptives are sufficiently widely known and applied this will help to keep the population down.
Really! If we are to have this kind of argument advanced, it seems that it is going beyond all common sense. I allude to this only to illustrate the dangers of bringing in the consideration of the size of the family or the effect on the existing children. If this consideration is brought in, I can see dangerous things flowing from it.
In the preceding Amendment which was lost, the idea of cutting out all consideration of the children was lost with it. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] That is how I understand it. If I am wrong in my assessment of the situation, I hope

that one of my hon. Friends will correct me. Having lost the proposal that consideration of the other children should be eliminated, we are obliged to direct attention to their well-being. If that is not so, I hope that the matter will be made clear. My difficulty is that, if my objection to the existing children being considered is strong enough to move me to vote against the Amendment, and the vote against it succeeds, then, it seems to me, well-being will remain in the Bill, which I do not want. How, therefore, should I vote?

Mr. Dunn: I support the first part of the Amendment, the deletion of the word "well-being". The question of the legal construction of that term was raised in the Standing Committee, and we encountered some problems during our discussion then. I acknowledge that the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) agreed that the word would be withdrawn on Report, but he did not say that he would at the same time add the phrase,
any existing children of her family".
I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) did not have a full opportunity to develop the point which he was making, because I think that it would have been a valuable guide to others who have some doubt on the subject.

Mr. David Steel: The Bill as it stood when it emerged from the Committee included a reference to the well being of the other children. What we are proposing here is not only to remove "well-being" but to make clear that the reference to the other children is limited to the health of the other children. Therefore, the Amendment is not to add something which is not already there.

Mr. Dunn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. That is quite right, and I acknowledge that I had misled the House. I apologise. I had the impression that the hon. Gentleman and those who supported him in Committee resisted to the last the deletion of the word "well-being", and my mind has, perhaps, been coloured by that resistance. I had overlooked that there was that reference to the other children.
I have not had opportunity to put Amendment No. 15 to the House, to leave out sub-paragraph (ii), though my right


hon. Friend the Home Secretary referred to it. It ties up with the Amendment now before us, and perhaps I may make my position clear on the question. I have no doubt about what I should do. I want no part of a Bill which extends the grounds for abortion further than those which are medical. I shall never support Amendments or Measures which widen the grounds to take into account social or economic considerations or the number in the family.
I am fortunate in my family, and I have never had to meet the challenge of my wife's life being in jeopardy as the result of a pregnancy. I do not know how I should answer that challenge if it were presented to me as an individual, in my family circumstances. On medical grounds, I might well be persuaded to accept the recommendations of those qualified to advise me. But I could never accept that an abortion should be performed for reasons of convenience. I cannot accept that for anybody else, and I cannot accept it for myself or for my family.
The amended subsection would refer to
the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or
her existing children. It is difficult to accept that the physical health of the existing children would be impaired as a result of the pregnancy of the mother. I can accept—I have experienced it in my own family—that there is sometimes a certain amount of mental aberration when another addition to the family usurps the position of the existing youngest one and pushes it along the line. A good many of us have had this problem. I do not think that this could be accepted as good and sufficient grounds for abortion, and I am sure that the sponsor of the Bill did not intend this. But that could well be the interpretation of the Clause as it is proposed to be amended.
I am concerned that the Bill leaves so many questionse unanswered. There are so many phrases in it that are unqualified and that is why I had hoped that the House would accept Amendment No. 15, which would have deleted sub-paragraph (ii) of Clause 1(1,a), which I consider to be ill-defined.
It has been suggested that support should be given to the Amendment on

the basis that "well-being" will be sufficiently narrowed. That is not really so, because, now that the House has decided that the sub-paragraph shall remain, all the eventualities of "well-being" are covered in the phrases "total environment" and "reasonably foreseeable". I am not sure what "reasonably foreseeable" means, because a clairvoyant would be needed.
Therefore, the sponsor is not giving way at all, and I hope that the House will not accept the Amendment.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Having sat here for nearly six hours, I might be tempted to develop my case at considerable length for fear of never getting the chance to speak again. But I shall resist the temptation because many of my hon. Friends wish to speak.
I want to give the House what I think is, to some extent, a new thought. I am against the Amendment because it perpetuates the reference to the other children. It seems to widen the ground for abortion from the present legal position to deal with the matter of family stresses and strains caused by the prospect of an additional child to an already fairly fruitful marriage.
I find it unacceptable that we should write this ground into the Bill and give encouragement to any practitioner or pregnant woman to go for an abortion on this ground, for the very good reason that it is better to let the no doubt perfectly developing child survive for life outside, as it were. Even if that child is not appreciated in the family to which it is a somewhat unwelcome addition, it should come into a world where it might well find a happy place with a married couple who have so far been childless.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Lena Jeger) was, I believe, the first to mention the word "adoption". There are many childless couples who desperately desire a family but cannot have one, for various medical reasons, and would like to adopt a child. There are not enough children available for adoption. The hon. Lady mentioned the legal difficulties, but I shall not dwell on the subject as I might be considered to be out of order.
I am most concerned that purely on the ground of family stresses and strains—the problems of the over-large family


we shall kill off a child who has developed perfectly up to the limit under the present law, which I believe to be 26 weeks, at which a pregnancy can be terminated.
3.45 a.m.
It is difficult to tell how long a pregnancy has gone on. I have personal knowledge of this. Our doctor at home assured my wife that she would have her first child on 10th April. It was then put off till 10th May, and it arrived three weeks after that—with a considerable struggle. From that experience it is obvious that a child in a very advanced stage might be the victim of the grisly operation described by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight). I will not go into that, except to say that I appreciated her sincerity and thought she was right to tell the House about it. Many hon. Members are not really aware of the facts. Some would do well to look at the specimens in the Hunterian collection at the Royal College of Surgeons to see what it is they are prepared to kill off at a fairly advanced stage in its development.
I am sure that all hon. Members want to avoid abortion if at all possible and do not want to place the medical profession in the position of having to perform any more abortions than are absolutely necessary. Therefore, I cannot support the present move of the sponsor to widen the grounds so that an over-large family can be used as a ground for abortion. The child perhaps unwanted by its parents may be very much wanted by other people, and we should not kill it off in this somewhat arbitrary fashion.
I say all this as one who realises that there are imperfections in the present law. I hope that the abortion racketeers will be killed off by this Measure as it finally reaches the Statute Book. I say this as one not unconnected with the medical profession and not unconnected, for that matter, with the British Medical Association.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I want to deal briefly with some of the points made by the hon. Members for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) and Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke). It concerns the proposal to omit the words on the Order

Paper. Both speakers have slightly confused the issue by suggesting—

Mr. John Wells: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). Approximately every two hours the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) has come chuntering into the Chamber without having been present and has then had a little furtive conversation with the Chair and fluttered to and fro. It will be in your personal recollection, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that at the conclusion of the Budget speech of 1966 you, with the greatest respect, were in certain difficulties, if I remember rightly, because—[Interruption.]—of some tic-tac or flag wagging that went on behind you which you were unable to see because you were on that occasion in the little Chair. [Hon. Members: "Wasting time."] We have observed approximately every two hours this evening the right hon. Member for Leeds, West coming in and going through these movements and then sitting in a position in the Chamber out of sight of the Chair and going through this same sort of tic-tac movement. Is this not, frankly, an abuse of our debate when the right hon. Gentleman has not listened to the discussion—[Interruption.]—but has then come in and moved the Closure—without having listened to the speeches?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order. Obviously, I am not responsible for the way in which hon. or right hon. Members behave in the Chamber.

Mr. C. Pannell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As my name was mentioned, perhaps I might point out that it is probably not within the knowledge of the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) that you are not in a position to accept the Closure. So any word that I may say to you can hardly be anything to do with the Closure at all. Any hon. Member except the hon. Member for Maidstone would have known that anyway. But it is not true that I have not been in this place. Not only was I present on Second Reading but I attended every sitting of the Standing Committee—

Mr. John Wells: And regularly moved the Closure.

Mr. Pannell: —and have taken a prominent part in this debate. I have been here practically the whole of the time. I suggest that the point of order is a complete abuse by the hon. Gentleman, who is completely ignorant of these things, anyway.

Mr. Frederic Harris: Further to that point of order. I have been in the House all the time since the commencement of the debate, and I want to hear every speech, because, like everybody else, I am very interested in what is said, but it makes a complete farce of the situation if the right hon. Gentleman keeps coming in like this every two hours. Cannot something be done about it?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think we should make better progress if we resumed the debate on the Amendment.

Mr. Maclennan: I share with the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford some anxiety about the proposed addition to the Clause of the words "existing children of her family" for the reasons which he gave, but on further reflection it would seem that in fact two doctors acting in good faith and making a medical judgment—and they are called upon by the Clause to make a medical judgment—would be hard put to it in most circumstances one can think of to suggest that the continuance of the pregnancy of the mother would constitute a risk to the health of the other children of the family.
The sub-paragraph with that addition would not indicate that the pregnancy can be terminated on the ground that there is an increase in the family expected, but because there is an existing pregnancy, and consequently, as I read the Clause, it is not a social addition which is being made but a further amplification of the medical condition, a further amplification of the medical criteria which the doctor will apply in determining whether or not the pregnancy should be terminated. Consequently I think that, although these fears are very justifiable, because of the very improbability of its being possible to establish that the health or life of the existing children is likely to be affected, this Amendment, which adds very little to the Bill, is not of sufficient moment to merit rejection.

Sir L. Heald: I suggest that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) has demonstrated very conclusively that the proposed Amendment is so ambiguous as to what it does and what it does not do, and as to one of the things he certainly did not think it should do, and that, if it is as ambiguous as that, we certainly should not accept it.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: I should like to make a brief intervention. I have not spoken on this before. I am on precisely the point which the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) have made, and that is to try to ascertain precisely what this Amendment would do. I was very interested indeed to hear the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) put forward the case as the kind of case which could be covered by his new Amendment. It seemed to me crystal clear that the kind of case he was talking about was one which would be covered by the Clause unamended at all—in other words, leaving in the word "well-being"—and would not be covered by the Clause as it would be if the Amendment were accepted.
As a layman who has not followed the debates, I hope the House will realise that the Amendment would not bring about any major change. There has not been a major concession. It would not make a major change in the intent of the Clause. Justification only applies in the sense that the Amendment would cover the cases quoted by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles and the hon. Lady the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Lena Jeger).
So far as I can see, the subsection would read:
… risk … of injury to the … mental health of any existing children …".
That is a wide margin. For a doctor to have to consider whether there is risk to the mental health of other existing children is so wide a provision that surely, to an average person of average intelligence, it would be just as much covered by the word "well-being".
We admire the sincerity and determination of the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles, but I put it to him


that the Amendment does not make a major concession. All the arguments which can be adduced for "well-being" can be adduced for the words of the Amendment. Most people who wanted to change the Clause wished to draw a distinction between medical judgment and social judgment. But the Amendment does not make a divide between the two. By the Amendment, medical practitioners would be expected to make a judgment which others might be as well qualified to make, if, indeed, anyone outwith the family is qualified to make it.
The cases quoted were from underprivileged homes which were the basis for some kind of social or medical problems which might perhaps justify the termination of a pregnancy. But there can be as much danger to mental health in over-affluent homes or in excessively privileged circumstances as there can be in under-privileged homes. I have been surprised to hear arguments about homes in Glasgow being overcrowded, with inadequate facilities. I wish that some of those who put this sort of thing as justification for termination of pregnancy would come to my constituency or that of the hon. Lady the Member for Glasgow, Gorbals (Mrs. Cullen) or other Glasgow constituencies and look at some of these so-called slums, with perhaps one room and an outside toilet. They would see that many of them are little palaces. Many people in them raise large families which turn out to be a credit to them and to Glasgow.
I do not assume that inferior families come out of inferior houses. Often, the reverse is the case. In many cases, over-privileged homes with plenty of space and money do not produce the quality of life one finds in many poorer homes.
I am sure that it is not intentional but it is possible to mislead hon. Members into thinking that a major concession of principle is being made by this Amendment. I do not think that it is a major concession because we still have this dividing line which should come between medical and social judgment. In these circumstances, I hope that many of those who have supported the Bill in principle will realise that there is a significant principle here and will not accept the Amendment.

4.0 a.m.

Mr. Hogg: I have tried to keep fairly detached in this matter, and I hope that I have succeeded, although if any one has observed the ways I have voted it would require a scholiast to explain in each case why I have voted in that direction.
I did say earlier that I would, if need be, come to the aid of the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel). Although there is one important point of dispute which can be raised, we should not underestimate the extent to which the hon. Gentleman has made a concession in the first part of his Amendment. It would be a great mistake in construing the Bill not to realise the importance of what is proposed by the omission of the word "well-being". I would have opposed the inclusion of the word "well-being" with all the force at my command, because it is absolutely crucial to ensure in this Bill, if it is to pass, that the criteria, whatever they are, which the two doctors are to apply in deciding whether to terminate a pregnancy, should be such as a medical man can claim to be within the ambit of his professional experience, qualification and training.
The word "well-being", were it to be included, could include almost anything. A very religious doctor could consider the future of the mother or the children in the next world. It is very difficult to say that they were not well-being. Another much more materially minded doctor might consider that the inability of the family to enjoy a new television set or a new car might justify the termination of a pregnancy as interfering with well-being. Personally, I should have found it wholly impossible to justify the inclusion of a word so vague and meaningless as a criterion by which the termination of a pregnancy should be judged.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles has omitted that word, and it is an injustice to him not to realise that he has made an important concession, because, whatever may be left afterwards—and I recognise that there are controversial matters left—he has at least ensured that the criteria by which the thing shall be judged will be medical criteria. I regard that as a concession of major importance.
I do not want to defend the words proposed to be included about the remaining children. I would far rather remain aloof on that point. It obviously involves difficult questions and I do not want to detain the House at this stage. However, I thought it fair to the hon. Gentleman to say that I regard the first part of his Amendment as one of major importance which goes a very long way to making the Bill more acceptable.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I found the contribution by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Lena Jeger) most impressive. She could be faulted in the logic of her remarks in relation to the Amendment under consideration, but the intervention which she made put the whole case for the Bill and, incidentally, for the Amendment. I have considerable sympathy with her point of view. She was saying that we have a situation now where if a woman needs an abortion and can pay for it she can have it, but if she needs it and cannot pay for it she does not have it. I am not unsympathetic to the plea which the hon. Lady put forward. If one rejects it, it is for wider moral and social considerations and not because one is unaware of the force of the argument and the feeling behind her particular plea.
I should like also to give some qualified support to this Amendment. I certainly consider, like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), that it is an improvement as far as it goes. I have never been opposed to a moderate measure of abortion law reform. I hope I have made that position clear. One of my strongest objections to this Bill has been the inclusion of this expression "well-being" because it is extremely vague and virtually incapable of legal definition. That is the argument which I put in Committee. I must say that when I did put it in Committee and when others did so too, it was rejected by the sponsor of the Bill in no uncertain terms. He pointed out that it was approved by the Law Society and by the Academy of Forensic Sciences, that it occurred in the Church of England Report which had approved it. Again and again he insisted that "well-being" was absolutely essential to this Bill.
May I quote what the hon. Member said about an intervention on this point, made with great cogency by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson). The sponsor of the Bill said:
The right hon. and learned Gentleman was asking that we should not include the word 'wellbeing' because he thought the word 'health' would be interpreted sufficiently widely to allow all the things we were talking about to be taken into account. I am concerned that cases could still be brought where the decision of the court would hinge on an interpretation of the word 'health' just as some previous cases have hinged on an interpretation of the word 'life'. If it is the intention of Parliament that social conditions should be taken into account I believe we have a duty to say so clearly, not only for the benefit of the court, but also for the benefit of the medical profession which is looking for pretty clear guidance from Parliament, and I do not think it is enough to leave it at 'health'."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F; 15th February, 1967, c. 251.]
Having attended that Committee and having had one's argument rejected in that way, one must ask oneself why has there been this change in the attitude of the sponsor of the Bill. That is a fair question that one is entitled to ask. If this was vital to the Bill on 15th February, why is it not equally vital on 30th June?

Mr. David Steel: Mr. David Steel rose—

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to intervene? I shall show him more courtesy than he showed to me when he made a personal reference to me and would not give way. I do not intend to follow that bad example.

Mr. Steel: The reason that I did not give way earlier was that I knew the hon. Gentleman would speak later. The hon. Gentleman will agree that if he continues the quotation to the end of the speech—which I hope he will not, because it is lengthy—he will come to a point, where I began my remarks today, when I undertook to look at the matter again.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Yes, I know he said that he would look at the matter again. But he has not explained why, having looked at the matter again, he has changed his mind. All that I can suggest on that point is that there may be some other considerations which we have not heard about, not unconnected with the


granting of extra time for this Bill, which have led him to change his mind.
A further reason for the conversion of the sponsor to taking out these words is surely, as has been said, that the change in some ways is more apparent than real. The Amendment seeks to leave out the words:
the future well-being of herself and or the child or her other children;
But, having done that, it is proposed to substitute the words:
any existing children of her family, and".
Clearly it is right to take out the reference to the child because it is a nonsense to say that the well-being of the child could advanced by being eliminated. But the point about the existing children of the family—a point on which I wished to interrupt the sponsor of the Bill—is that it is sought to be put in as an alternative ground. The hon. Member made the point that if they were joined by "and", before an abortion could be carried out a doctor would have to consider not only the health of the mother, but the health of the existing children. I accept that. By his Amendment, however, the hon. Member has separated the two. The life or health of the mother and the life or health of the children are separate grounds for abortion. It is the separation into two, so that the second part is not considered as part of the health or life of the mother, that causes the objection which many of us have to the Amendment.
Thirdly, it is unnecessary to put it that way, because paragraph (a)(ii) includes the point adequately for the purposes of the sponsor of the Bill, since it states:
in determining whether or not there is such risk of injury to health or well-being account may be taken of the patient's total environment actual or reasonably foreseeable".

Mr. Braine: My hon. Friend has said that in Committee upstairs the sponsor of the Bill stated that the medical profession was looking for a clear lead from us. My hon. Friend will be aware that

consistently the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists have been opposed to the inclusion of "well-being". Will he take it from me that they are equally opposed to the separate grounds which the sponsor of the Bill now proposes?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Certainly. In the course of these months I have come to regard my hon. Friend as the alter ego of the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the mouthpiece of obstetricians, if that is not an anatomical impossibility.

Mr. Braine: And the Royal College of Nursing?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: We must leave it there.
I have made the points which I want to make on the Amendment and I will now cease, because I do not wish, by waving my arms, to rouse the ire of the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), nor do I want to start the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) hovering again, because the hover is always followed by an unfortunate Guillotine.
If I may venture, in line with what I have said in my objections to and comments on the Amendment, to offer some advice to my hon. Friends—which they are at complete liberty to take or not—I think that in view of the course of the debate it would be reasonable, in view of the views which have been expressed, not to vote against the deletion of "well-being" but that one should vote against the inclusion of the words about the existing children of the family which have been so widely objected to.

Mr. C. Pannell: Mr. C. Pannell rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 146, Noes 71.

Brooks, Edwin
Hornby, Richard
Pardoe, John


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Horner, John
Park, Trevor


Brown, Bob (Npc'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Cant, R. B.
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Carlisle, Mark
Howie, W.
Pavitt, Laurence


Channon, H. P. G.
Huckfield, L.
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Coe, Denis
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Price, William (Rugby)


Concannon, J. D.
Hunt, John
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Rees, Merlyn


Corfield, F. V.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)
Reynolds, G. W.


Crawshaw, Richard
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Richard, Ivor


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)


Dell, Edmund
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Dewar, Donald
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Etwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Jones, Rt. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Ryan, John


Dobson, Ray
Judd, Frank
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Dunnett, Jack
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Sheldon, Robert


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lipton, Marcus
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Ellis, John
Loughlin, Charles
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Ensor, David
Luard, Evan
Snow, Julian




Spriggs, Leslie


Faulds, Andrew
Lubbock, Eric
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Stonehouse, John


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
MacColl, James
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
MacDermot, Niall
Swingler, Stephen


Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Maclennan, Robert.
Taverne, Dick


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Forrester, John
Mayhew, Christopher.
Urwin, T. W.


Foster, Sir John
Mendelson, J. J
Vickers, Dame Joan


Fowler, Gerry
Mikardo, Ian
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Millan, Bruce
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Freeson, Reginald
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Weitzman, David


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Moyle, Roland
Wellbeloved, James


Goodhart, Philip
Murray, Albert
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Newens, Stan
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Gresham Cooke, R.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Winnick, David


Hale, Leslie (Oldham W.)
Ogden, Eric
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Hamling, William
Onslow, Crarrtey



Haseldine, Norman
Oram, Albert
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Heseltine, Michael
Orme, Stanley
Mr. Edward Lyons and


Hobden, Denis (Brighton, K'town)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Sir George Sinclair.


Hooley, Frank
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles





NOES


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Harris, Reader (Heston &amp; Islew'th)
Montgomery, Fergus


Alldritt, Walter
Harvie, Anderson, Miss
Murton, Oscar


Baker, W. H. K.
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Oakes, Gordon


Biggs-Davison, John
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Oswald, Thomas


Black, Sir Cyril
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Braine, Bernard
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Percival, Ian


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Clegg, Walter
Kerby, Capt. Henry
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Culten, Mrs. Alice
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Small, William


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Kimball, Marcus
Summers, Sir Spencer


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kitson, Timothy
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


d'Avigdor-Goidsmid, Sir Henry
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Tinn, James


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Lever, L. M. (M'nchstr, Ardwick)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Delargy, Hugh
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Wall, Patrick


Dempsey, James
McBride, Neil
Ward, Dame Irene


Dunn, James A.
Macdonald, A. H.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


English, Michael
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Fortescue, Tim
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Maddan, Martin
Wright, Esmond


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)



Glover, Sir Douglas
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gurden, Harold
Marten, Neil
Mr. R. Grant-Ferris and


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Maude, Angus
Mr. Robert Cooke.


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Monro, Hector

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am informed of hon. Members in the Lobby refusing to pass the Tellers. I direct the Serjeant at Arms to instruct the hon. Members to pass the Tellers. I must inform the House that I take a serious view of what has just happened. If it happened again

I would have no alternative but to instruct the Serjeant at Arms to take the names of the hon. Gentlemen who had refused to pass the Tellers; and then I would be compelled to do what I would most regrettably have to do, which would be to name the hon. Gentlemen.

Mr. Marten: On a point of order. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Marten, point of order?

Mr. Marten: I understand, Mr. Speaker, that that remark might have been directed at me. I was, in fact, the first through the Division Lobby. I cast my vote first and I merely happened to be there, at the writing desk.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Speaker was not directing his remark at any specific hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Marten: I mentioned it just in case.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: Further to that point of order. May I put to you, with the utmost respect, Mr. Speaker, the fact that there were no other voters in the Lobby? At the time, and owing to the fact that there was nobody there to see that the Lobby was empty, we two Tellers had

Division No. 411.]
AYES
[4.30 a.m.


Albu, Austen
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Allaun Frank (Salford, E.)
Forrester, John
Mayhew, Christopher


Allen, Scholefield
Foster, Sir John
Mendelson, J. J.


Archer, Peter
Fowler, Gerry
Mikardo, Ian


Armstrong, Ernest
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Millan, Bruce


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Freeson, Reginald
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Bacon, Rt. Hn, Alice
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Moyle, Roland


Bagier, Cordon A. T.
Goodhart, Philip
Murray, Albert


Barnes, Michael
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Newens, Stan


Barnett, Joel
Gresham Cooke, R.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Beaney, Alan
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Ogden, Eric


Bidwell, Sydney
Hamling, William
Oram, Albert E.


Bishop, E. S.
Haseldine, Norman
Orme, Stanley


Booth, Albert
Heseltine, Michael
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hooley, Frank
Pardoe, John


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hornby, Richard
Park, Trevor


Brooks, Edwin
Horner, John
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Pavitt, Laurence


Cant, R. B.
Howie, W.
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Channon, H. P. G.
Huckfield L.
Price, William (Rugby)


Coe, Denis
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Concannon, J. D.
Hunt, John
Rees, Merlyn


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Reynolds, G. W.


Crawshaw, Richard
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St.P'cras, S.)
Richard, Ivor


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Robinson, Rt.Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)


Dell, Edmund
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Dewar, Donald
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Ryan, John


Dobson, Ray
Judd, Frank
Sharpies, Richard


Dunnett, Jack
Kerr Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Sheldon, Robert


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; c'b'e)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)


Ellis, John
Lipton, Marcus
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Ensor, David
Loughlin, Charles
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Faulds, Andrew
Luard, Evan
Snow, Julian


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lubbock, Eric
Spriggs, Leslie


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
MacDermot, Niall
Stonehouse, John


Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Maclennan, Robert
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

to remain there until we were—sure[Interruption.]—and only one hon. Gentleman remained in the Lobby and had already passed us. I do not think that there was any disrespect to the House.

Several hon. Members: Several hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that what the hon. Gentleman is saying is true and that that is an explanation of what happened. I am not doubting the hon. Gentleman's word, and I trust that the debate is being carried on in a reasonable way. I do not believe that that delay in the Lobby is of any advantage to Parliament or to the opponents or proponents of any Measure.

Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill, put and negatived.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 140, Noes 77.

Swingler, Stephen
Weitzman, David
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Urwin, T. W.
Wellbeloved, James



Vickers, Dame Joan
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Wainwright Richard (Colne Valley)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Sir George Sinclair and


Walden, Brian (All Saints)
Winnick, David
Mr. Edward Lyons.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Montgomery, Fergus


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Murton, Oscar


Alldritt, Walter
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Oakes, Cordon


Baker, W. H. K.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Onslow, Cranley


Biggs-Davison, John
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Oswald, Thomas


Black, Sir Cyril
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Braine, Bernard
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Percival, Ian


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Corfield, F. V.
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Small, William


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Kimball, Marcus
Summers, Sir Spencer


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kitson, Timothy
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


d'Avigdor-Goidsmid, Sir Henry
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Tinn, James


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Delargy, Hugh
McBride, Neil
Wall, Patrick


Dempsey, James
MacColl, James
Ward, Dame Irene


Dunn, James A,
Macdonald, A. H.
Welts, John (Maidstone)


English, Michael
McGuire, Michael
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Fortescue, Tim
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Williams, Mrs. Shirey (Hitchin)


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Galpern, Sir Myer
McNamara, J. Kevin
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Gilmour, Sir Jhon (Fife, E.)




Glover, Sir Douglas
Maddan, Martin
Wright, Esmond


Gurden, Harold
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)



Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Marten, Neil
Mr. R. Grant-Ferris and


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Maude, Angus
Mr. Robert Cooke.


Heald, Rt, Hn. Sir Lionel
Monro, Hector

Mr. Speaker: We come now to—

Mr. English: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you, at this stage, be prepared to entertain a Motion to adjourn the debate?

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must seek to move it—

Mr. English: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I beg to move, That this debate be now adjourned—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must move his Motion with the words—

Mr. English: Mr. English rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand the hon. Gentleman's eagerness. I am assisting him. He will move, That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned.

Mr. English: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I beg to move,
That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned.

Hon. Members: Shame.

Mr. English: It is clear from the sounds that we heard when I moved this that some hon. Members think that I am doing

so for delaying reasons—[Interruption.] I can only say that they will realise that I am not by reason of the length of speech which I propose to make. It will not be a long one.
I move this Motion for two very simple reasons—[An HON. MEMBER: "He wants to go to bed."] It must be obvious to anyone who is aware of the way the procedure of this House works that the Government will not allow their own business to be interfered with by this debate—[Interruption.] It will therefore be cut off at an hour before that—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have been debating seriously all night. Running commentaries or interjections do not help at this stage.

Mr. English: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is obvious that no Government would allow its business to be interfered with. This debate, therefore, will inevitably be cut off at some time not later than 11 o'clock this morning.
Supporters of the Bill were in favour of the last Amendment. It is clear from the course of the debate that full consideration of the Bill on Report and Third Reading will not be completed by the hour I have mentioned. In these circumstances it seems wholly and utterly


reasonable for the sake of hon. Members on both sides of the House and to those in support of and against the Bill, and the officers of the House—we have had an example that some are not exactly—[An HON. MEMBER: "No more tickets for you"]—I do not think that any of my constituents want tickets at this hour.
At this stage this Motion is wholly and utterly reasonable. It would enable hon. Members and officials to go home—including you, Mr. Speaker—to get a reasonable measure of sleep before business begins later this morning.

Mr. Houghton: The consideration which the hon. Member is extending to hon. Members on both sides of the House is utterly misplaced. Hon. Members on both sides who do not wish to stay can go home. This is private Members' time—[Interruption.]—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is no reason why this all-night proceeding should not be conducted in a good Parliamentary way.

Mr. Houghton: I repeat that this is private Members' time on a Private Member's Bill. That should be precious to hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House. If we are to waste our own time so sparingly granted each Session by the Sessional Orders, we are unconscious of the injury we are doing to our interests as private Members. This is a squalid manoeuvre. It is difficult to discuss it except in contemptuous terms.
This Bill was given a Second Reading nearly a year ago. [An HON. MEMBER: "By an overwhelming majority."] It has spent 33 hours in Committee and five hours the other Friday on Report. The Government have given the opportunity for private Members to discuss a Private Member's Bill in non-Government time. Yet here we are not knowing how to use it and not doing credit to the reputation of Parliament. If we go on like this the repute of this House will sink lower than it is already. The public will ask, "When are these measures of reform to come out of the House of Commons if hon. Members behave in this way throughout the night?" I hope that we shall end this reprehensible exhibition of filibustering. We know that there is a filibuster going on. We saw the letter sent out by the

hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas).

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are discussing at the moment whether we should adjourn.

Mr. Houghton: Yes. I confessed how difficult it was to speak with any restraint. We have until nine o'clock or after. We can make further progress on the Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why nine?"] We can spend as much time on the Bill today as the House resolves to spend on it. If this business is broken off to allow Government business to come forward, that will be the decision of the House. We know that some hon. Members who oppose the Bill wish to do so by procedural obstruction and not by the merits of debate. In these circumstances, it is the bounden duty of the House of Commons to have regard to its own self-respect and continue with its business. We have the whole of the night for this debate. Every Member of the House knew that we had the whole of the night for the debate. There was no question arising during the night as to how long we were going on. We knew that this had been allotted as private Members' time for a Private Member's Bill and it was fully expected by all right hon. and hon. Members that it would be used to the full. Will anyone deny that?

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: It has been used. Where has the right hon. Gentleman been?

Mr. Houghton: I have been here the whole time.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must deprecate this back chat cross the Floor. There are opinions strongly held on both sides. There is no need for hon. Members who have not got the Floor at the moment to shout across the Floor at each other.

Mr. Houghton: I have had my say. I sincerely hope that, for the reputation of the House, we can make further progress with the Bill and not delay what we have to do by a frivolous discussion on adjourning the debate.

Sir L. Heald: I did not have the privilege and interest of serving on the Standing Committee. I have studied the Bill with care and followed its progress with great interest. I have taken a very limited part in what has been going on today.
The discussion has been good debating and interesting. Several points of great importance have been raised and dealt with. It is absolutely wrong to say that there has been filibustering. [Interruption.] That is what I think, and I think it is right. As I am not prejudiced either way, I believe I am entitled to speak.
One very good reason why we should stop now is this. I have for many years had a great admiration for and, I hope, friendship with the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton). I believe he is a little tired. If we adjourn now he would be able to have a good sleep. Clearly there is much more serious discussion to take place on the Bill. I do not know anything about the probable length of the debates, but it is certain that there are three or four important debates yet to come. Whatever anyone says, we are not at our best discussing these difficult matters at 7 and 8 o'clock in the morning.
I ask the House to take this seriously. The right hon. Gentleman said that there might be a danger of the country getting the wrong idea of the way we behave. I think that people will get a worse idea if we insist on sitting here until nine o'clock instead of going home now.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: I would like to echo the words of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English). I have sat here throughout this debate, and, like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald), I was not privileged to be a member of the Committee.
We have had to debate the precise use of words, and it has been a debate of a very high order. It has been an analysis of what phrases mean, and it is only right and proper that the House of Commons should spend time on a Measure which is important to thousands of people. I believe that there has not been filibustering but a serious debate of a very high level.
Considering the niceties of language used, and the problems with which the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) has had to contend—the language has been changed no less than eight times—I believe that we should adjourn now. We will be in better heart and form to continue with this on a later occasion. The sponsors

of the Bill must realise that they cannot get the Bill through today, and I would have thought that it would be better to adjourn now.

Mr. Maude: If the sponsors of the Bill want this Motion to be disposed of fairly quickly and reasonably, the speech of the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) is hardly the way to achieve it.
Having sat through 33 hours of discussion in Standing Committee, which the right hon. Gentleman did not, and having made only three speeches during the progress of the Measure, I do not think I can be accused of filibustering. I think the right hon. Gentleman must realise that if he makes speeches like that at this time of the night it is as good a reason for adjourning the debate as any we have heard. It should be remembered that only a day or two ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he did not think it was right that the House of Commons should discuss important matters after midnight.
Unless we have some indication from the Government of their intentions, as well as those of the sponsors of the Bill, about the future progress of this Measure, it is very difficult for us to come to a conclusion on the Motion which was moderately and briefly moved by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English). I think that it would be for the convenience of the House if we could have the Leader of the House here to tell us that.

Mr. Dunn: I appeal to hon. Members to recognise that this is a very important matter. I oppose the majority of the Bill, but I think that we do our cause no good by discussing the Motion at length, and I hope that hon. Members will now desist. It has been moved with good intent, but evidently this has been misunderstood, or perhaps there is a strong feeling that because progress on the Bill has not been as rapid as some expected and they are rather sore about it. I ask the House to confine itself to disposing of the rest of the Amendments, rather than discussing a procedural problem in a way which can only bring us grief at the end of the day.

Mr. Corfield: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) in deploring the approach of


the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton). The right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that we are lowering the repute of the House by carrying on with an important Measure of this kind till five in the morning is in such contrast to the views of his own party on the use of all-night sittings—in order to cure which we now have the ludicrous business of morning sittings—that it is sheer humbug on his part to make such comments now.
We are here because the Government have taken it upon themselves to select for this treatment various Private Members' Bills on highly controversial subjects which touch deeply hon. Members on both sides, and it is nonsense and hypocrisy to accuse hon. Members who wish to consider these questions gravely, as they ought, of filibustering when they do so. I strongly resent the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, and I hope that it will be realised by everyone that we are here because the Government have not got the guts to take over the conduct of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot discuss now the question of the guts or lack of guts of the Government. We are considering whether consideration of the Bill should be adjourned.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: I support my hon. Friends in this matter, and I hope that the House can forget the somewhat intemperate and slightly pompous speech of the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton). It will not help us if we embark on a consideration of the Motion in a spirit of over-tiredness or heat.
There are two excellent reasons for supporting the Motion. The probability of passing the Bill through all its stages in the time remaining to us this morning is non-existent. Whatever their views, it would be very foolish of hon. Members to insist on beating out their brains for another four hours on a discussion which will be entirely nugatory unless and until we have the advantage of hearing from the right hon. Gentleman who is sometimes laughingly called the Leader of the House what the Government's intention is regarding allowing further time for the Bill.
The House should be sufficiently adult to recognise the facts. It should realise that we do our reputation no good by keeping ourselves, you, Mr. Speaker, and many servants of the House from bed in an exercise which is becoming entirely pointless.

Mr. Hugh Delargy: I do not mind whether further consideration is adjourned or not. If a Division is called, I shall abstain, just to show my neutrality.
I do not object in the least to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton); I disagreed with it, but I do not object to it. I do not object to his being intemperate or anything else. People feel deeply on this matter, and they can lose their tempers about it. Indeed, this might be a healthy sign. I am glad that people feel so deeply about a principle that they can fight among themselves about it. I am all for that.
What I do object to, very gently, if I may, are comments by some of my right hon. and hon. Friends accusing me, when I oppose the Bill, of being obscurantist and reactionary, particularly when I compare my political record with theirs.

Dr. David Kerr: The Motion is being used by some opponents of the Bill as a vehicle to attack the Government and, at the same time, in a curious "standing on the head" fashion, it is being used to attack my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), whose intemperateness is deplored by others who try to out-do him at it. There is no need for intemperate speaking. Most of us are experienced Parliamentarians, and whatever we may say for outside consumption we all know that this is a perfectly legitimate use of procedural methods. Opportunities to delay the progress of a Bill have for long been an inbuilt part of our Parliamentary democracy as a way of defeating it. While some of us may talk of filibustering, others recognise, albeit with regret, that the opponents of the Bill are making use of the opportunities built into our Parliamentary procedure for reasons which they hold sincerely.
5.0 a.m.
We feel that this is quite wrong, and when hon. Members opposing the Bill charge the Government with giving it


priority I remind them that the House and another place have overwhelmingly given it priority. Such a clear vote of confidence in the progress of the Bill called on the Government a need to give it consideration. That is what has happened, and it is now the duty of the House to proceed with all reasonable expedition to a satisfactory conclusion.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Do not delay it.

Dr. Kerr: It is not the supporters of the Bill who are delaying it and keeping the House up at night. They would have gone home hours if not days ago with the Bill having been given its Third Reading. Let nobody charge the supporters with delay.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must keep to the question of whether we postpone further consideration of the Bill.

Dr. Kerr: In view of that, Mr. Speaker, I only urge that the House reject the Motion and proceed with all reasonable speed to a satisfactory conclusion.

Mr. Marcus Kimball: I support the Motion. It is distressing for all of us that the Leader of the House is still absent. After all, he is responsible for this unique experiment of having private Members' time running all through the night. He should be here to see how his experiment is getting on.
We should now adjourn. We have been discussing the Bill on Report for over seven hours—well in excess of the time which has been allowed for the Report stage of any Private Members' Bill since Private Members' Bills were restored in 1945. We are here only because of the abuse of private Members' time which hon. Members opposite have supported. This is not the way to handle Private Members' Bills.

Mr. Hogg: I wish to intervene for only a moment or two. I deprecate the charges and counter-charges of the kind we have heard on both sides, because it is obvious that both sides are entirely sincere in their respective attitudes. I deprecated the use of the all-night sitting to get the Bill through, not because I want to hold it up but simply because experience has led me to believe that tempers tend to rise after about three

o'clock in the morning, although I understand the eagerness with which the supporters of the Bill want to get it through.
I invite the Government to let us know what further time they would make available for discussion of the Bill if we adjourned now. They owe it to the House to tell us. I am not asking the Leader of the House to be here, because I dare say that it is inconvenient for him to attend, but several very senior members of the Government are present and they must know what the situation is. Suppose we find it more convenient and dignified to adjourn now. Will they tell us what further time might be made available for the consideration of the Bill, at perhaps a more convenient hour, and at a time perhaps when we could indulge in rational discussion in a more equable frame of mind?

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I rise for only a a moment or two. I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that, although it is well after three o'clock in the morning my temper is not rising, and I notice no sign of his temper rising either.
As to the debate on the Motion, I accept fully that there are very sincere and deep views held on this subject on both sides of the House and cutting across the sides of the House. But I find that some rather contradictory arguments have been put in supporting the Motion. The first is that the level of debate has been very high till now but will suddenly plunge precipitately downwards if we go on any longer. The second is that the Government have been wrong to give any time for the Bill—I think that the interest that the Bill has aroused both inside and ouside the House fully justifies the time—but that, while the Government have been wrong to give any time, they would now be right to give a definite pledge about future time if we adjourned.
What is clearly the case, and what I must say to the House, is that I think it is true, as my right hon. Friend said, that most hon. Members knew that we were in for a long sitting. I believe that all hon. Members, whatever their views on the Bill, who want to come to a decision on the Bill and on points on the Bill, would now think it reasonable not to hold it up but that we should go on and use some of the re-


maining time available. I think that we can use four hours or so. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I was asked to give some indication of what we thought was a reasonable proposition, and the indication that I give is that in my view it would be reasonable to proceed for about another four hours. Clearly, we shall not complete the Bill, but we can make progress. We must make as much progress as we can, and the Government will then consider the position in relation to what progress we have made.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Sir S. Summers: Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate whether by his remarks we are to understand that the Government Whips will be put on at nine o'clock?

Mr. C. Pannell: Mr. C. Pannell rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put; but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.

Sir D. Glover: The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) who moved the Motion in a most moderate fashion, has, I think, the support of a great many hon. Members. This is a Bill of transcendent importance. Hon. Members who are rather excited about it and want to get it through very quickly are perhaps in the excitement of the moment forgetting that we are dealing here with human life. [Interruption.] An hon. Member says "Rubbish". But we are dealing with human life, that of the mother and the unborn child. A Bill of this importance is one that every hon. Member ought to be able to weigh up with the greatest judgment. We have now been discussing it, after a full day's ordinary business, for seven hours already, more than a normal sitting of the House.
It seems to me that the House will be very foolish if it insists on going on much longer than it has done already. It is now after five o'clock. We all know, Mr. Speaker, that this is an additional burden on you. I do not think that hon. Members ought to forget that this is also an additianal burden on the staff of the House, who are now here as well at five o'clock in the morning, and will be expected to be here to

service the House for the Third Reading of the Finance Bill on Friday and on Monday. I understand that the Officers of the House are already finding it extraordinarily difficult to maintain the staff with the late sittings that the House seems to have got into the habit of having in recent times. That is why I think the Motion should be accepted. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) helped at all by the mood in which he addressed the House.
As to the problem of the Bill itself, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) I think has said he is looking for a form of words which he wants to bring into the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith) had an Amendment which was at one time debatable but is not on the Paper today. If there were a delay with the Bill he would, no doubt, be able to get that Amendment on the Paper, and I think it would remove a great deal of the opposition of a lot of hon. Members who are worried about the Bill if that Amendment were open to discussion and vote. But this can only happen if there is a delay, a break in the debate on Report of the Bill.
We have already had seven hours' debate. I think it is true to say that the debates up to now have been of a very high standard. I accept what the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary said about that. I think it is true that the debates have been very thoughtful. I do not accept at all the view that there has been filibustering, and so on. I think the debates have been of a very high standard indeed. [Interruption.] This is what I deplore in the attitude of those who are apparently unqualified supporters of the Bill: they seem to think that anybody who holds a slightly different view, or who makes a speech about it, is automatically filibustering. This is a Bill dealing with human life, the life of the mother or of the unborn child, and I think it is right and proper that the Bill should receive weighty discussion on the Floor of the House. The Committee stage took 33 hours. I do not think anybody has said there was filibustering in the Committee.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are on a specific Motion at the moment.

Sir D. Glover: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker, and I am trying to keep strictly in order, but I am trying to rebut the argument being put by the opponents of this Motion that there has been filibustering. That was the only reason why I entered into the history of the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude), who said he had spoken only three times to the Bill, has taken a great interest in the Bill. He has spoken tonight, as have other hon. Members interested in the Bill. For many of us this is the first opportunity we have had of getting our teeth into the problem—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] This applies to the whole House except for the 25 Members of the Committee. This is the first time we have had an opportunity in public, in the House, of stating our views, or expressing an opinion, expressing our fears, our worries, and so on.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question before the House is whether we continue our discussion or not.

Sir D. Glover: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I have tried very hard to keep strictly to the Motion. I think it is important that when this is the first time we have had the opportunity of discussing matters of such great weight and importance we do not overdo the time scale and do not now go on with debate. It is now a quarter past five.

Division No. 412.]
AYES
[5.17 a.m.


Albu, Austen
Dell, Edmund
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Dewar, Donald
Hooley, Frank


Allen, Scholefield
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hornby, Richard


Archer, Peter
Dobson, Ray
Horner, John


Armstrong, Ernest
Dunn, James A.
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Dunnett, Jack
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Howie, W.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Huckfield, L.


Barnes, Michael
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)


Barnett, Joel
Ellis, John
Hunt, John


Beaney, Alan
Ensor, David
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)


Bidwell, Sydney
Faulds, Andrew
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)


Bishop, E. S.
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Booth, Albert
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, w.)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Brooks, Edwin
Forrester, John
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Foster, Sir John
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Fowler, Gerry
Judd, Frank


Cant, R. B.
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)


Carlisle, Mark
Freeson, Reginald
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)


Channon, H. P. G.
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Lestor, Miss Joan


Coe, Denis
Goodhart, Philip
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Concannon, J. D.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Lipton, Marcus


Cooke, Robert
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Loughlin, Charles


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hamling, William
Luard, Evan


Crawshaw, Richard
Haseldine, Norman
Lubbock, Eric


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Heseltine, Michael
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

Mrs. Renée Short: A quarter of an hour wasted.

Sir D. Glover: I do not think we shall give the medical profession a belief in our judgment if they realise that they have to carry out a decision we reached at 7 or 8 o'clock in the morning. I accept what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sowerby said about that: if the House Commons wants to keep its authority and dignity we should see that those who have to carry out the laws we pass can see, as they have the right to see, that those laws were passed at a reasonable hour of the day or night, and not in the early hours of the morning, when our judgment is, perhaps, affected. [Interruption.] With the greatest respect to the two hon. Ladies opposite, I suggest they could perhaps even be affected by the interjections from the other side of the House. This is not the sort of atmosphere, with interjections across the Floor and people's motives being, imputed, in which thoughtful speeches can be made on a matter which affects human lives.

Mr. C. Pannell: Mr. C. Pannell rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question he now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 145, Noes 64.

MacColl, James
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Stonehouse, John


MacDermot, Niall
Pavitt, Laurence
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Maclennan, Robert
Price, William (Rugby)
Swingler, Stephen


McNamara, J. Kevin
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Taverne, Dick


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Rees, Merlyn
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Mayhew, Christopher
Reynolds, G. W.
Urwin, T. W.


Mendelton, J. J.
Richard, Ivor
Vickers, Dame Joan


Mikardo, Ian
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Millan, Bruce
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Moonman, Eric
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Weitzman, David


Murray, Albert
Rowland, Christopher (Mereden)
Wellbeloved, James


Newens, Stan
Ryan, John
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Ogden, Eric
Sheldon, Robert
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Oram, Albert E.
Shore, Peter (Stepney)
Winnick, David


Orme, Stanley
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)



Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Pardoe, John
Snow, Julian
Mr. Christopher Price and


Park, Trevor
Spriggs, Leslie
Sir George Sinclair.


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)





NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Monro, Hector


Alldritt, Walter
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Murton, Oscar


Baker, W. H. K.
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Oakes, Gordon


Biggs-Davison, John
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Onslow, Cranley


Black, Sir Cyril
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Oswald, Thomas


Braine, Bernard
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Clegg, Walter
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Percival, Ian


Corfield, F. V.
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Crowder, F. P.
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Kimball, Marcus
Sharples, Richard


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kitson, Timothy
Summers, Sir Spencer


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Wall, Patrick


Delargy, Hugh
McBride, Neil
Ward, Dame Irene


Dempsey, James
Macdonald, A. H.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


English, Michael
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Fortescue, Tim
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Maddan, Martin
Wright, Esmond


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)



Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Glover, Sir Douglas
Marten, Neil
Mr. Harold Gurden and


Grant-Ferris, R.
Maude, Angus
Sir Knox Cunningham.


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)

Question put accordingly, That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned.

Division No. 413.]
AYES
[5.24 a.m.


Alison Michael (Barkston Ash)
Harris, Frederick (Croydon, N.W.)
Monro, Hector


Alldritt, Walter
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Murton, Oscar


Baker, W. H. K.
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Oakes, Gordon


Biggs-Davison, John
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Onslow, Cranley


Black, Sir Cyril
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Oswald, Thomas


Braine, Bernard
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Percival, Ian


Corfield, F. V.
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Crowder, F. P.
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Kimball, Marcus
Sharples, Richard


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kitson, Timothy
Small, William


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Summers, Sir Spencer


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Dempsey, James
McBride, Neil
Tinn, James


English, Michael
Macdonald, A. H.
Wall, Patrick


Fortescue, Tim
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Ward, Dame Irene


Fraser. Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Maddan, Martin
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Glover, Sir Douglas
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Wright, Esmond


Goodhart, Philip
Marten, Neil



Grant-Ferris, R.
Maude, Angus
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Mr. Harold Gurden and




Sir Knox Cunningham.

The House divided: Ayes 66, Noes 144.

NOES


Albu, Austen
Foster, Sir John
Newens, Stan


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Fowler, Gerry
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Allen, Scholefield
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Ogden, Eric


Archer, Peter
Freeson, Reginald
Oram, Albert E.


Armstrong, Ernest
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Orme, Stanley


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hamling, William
Pardoe, John


Barnes, Michael
Haseldine, Norman
Park, Trevor


Barnett, Joel
Heseltine, Michael
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Beaney, Alan
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Hooley, Frank
Pavitt, Laurence


Bidwell, Sydney
Hornby, Richard
Price, William (Rugby)


Bishop, E. S.
Horner, John
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Boardman, H.
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Rees, Merlyn


Booth, Albert
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Reynolds, G. W.


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Howie, W.
Richard, Ivor


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Huckfield, L.
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, s.)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)


Brooks, Edwin
Hunt, John
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Brown, Bob, (N'ctle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'Cras, S.)
Ryan, John


Cant, R. B.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Carlisle, Mark
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Sheldon, Robert


Channon, H. P. G.
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Clegg, Walter
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, w.)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)


Coe, Denis
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Concannon, J. D.
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Cooke, Robert
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Snow, Julian


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Judd, Frank
Spriggs, Leslie


Crawshaw, Richard
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Stonehouse, John


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Strauss, Ht. Hn. G. R.


Dell, Edmund
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Swingler, Stephen


Dewar, Donald
Lipton, Marcus
Taverne, Dick


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Loughlin, Charles
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Dobson, Ray
Luard, Evan
Urwin, T. W.


Dunn, James A.
Lubbock, Eric
Vickers, Dame Joan


Dunnett, Jack
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
MacColl, James
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
MacDermot, Niall
Weitzman, David


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Maclennan, Robert
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Ellis, John
McNamara, J. Kevin
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Ensor, David
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wilson, Willam (Coventry, S.)


Faulds, Andrew
Mayhew, Christopher
Winnick, David


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mendelson, J. J.
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mikardo, Ian



Foot, Rt. Hn. Dingle (Ipswich)
Millan, Bruce
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Moonman, Eric
Mr. Christopher Price and


Forrester, John
Murray, Albert
Sir George Sinclair.

Mr. Speaker: We now come to a group of Amendments. With Amendment 17, we are taking also the following Amendments:

Amendment 47: in page 1, line 15, after 'or', insert 'physical or mental'.

Amendment 25: in line 20, at end insert:
Provided that no termination shall be carried out on the ground of wellbeing unless the consent has first been given of the panel of experts appointed by the Minister under section 2(1)(d) of this Act.

Amendment 40: in Clause 2, page 2, line 26, at end insert:
(d) for appointing a panel of experts made up of doctors, psychiatrists, and social workers to carry out the duties prescribed in the proviso to section 1(1)(b) of this Act.

Mr. David Steel: I beg to move Amendment 17, in page 1, line 15, to leave out 'or well-being'.
This is a purely consequential Amendment.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: It is true that the Amendment, moved by the sponsor of the Bill, to take out the second "well-being" is a consequential Amendment. I for one welcome that consequential Amendment and I think that the vast majority of hon. Members have indicated by their previous actions that they want that "well-being" clause taken out. It is not, however, a question only of Amendment 17. Amendments 47, 25 and 40 have also to be considered.
I would like briefly to say a word about the virtues of having a panel, as my Amendments 25 and 40 provide. Amendment No. 25 provides for a panel of experts and Amendment No. 40 the machinery for their appointment. The experts would be doctors—

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I know that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to hold up the House with unnecessary debate. Do not his two Amendments necessarily fall if the "well-being" Amendment, No. 17, which he said he supports, is carried, as they are geared to it?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The word "well-being" would be removed, but the possibility of a panel considering the problem remains—

Mr. Eric Lubbock: On a point of order. Would you rule, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the hon. Gentleman can discuss the panel only in the context of its interpreting "well-being", as set out in Amendment No. 25, and none of its other functions?

Sir D. Glover: Further to that point of order. Surely my hon. Friend is in order in discussing Amendments Nos. 25 and 40, since the Chair said that the three may be discussed together and the House has reached no conclusion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Nothing divides the two hon. Gentlemen. The House may consider Amendments Nos. 25 and 40 and the hon. Gentleman is perfectly in order in doing so. I am not sure what further point the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) is making.

Mr. Lubbock: I am asking you to rule, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the hon. Gentleman may discuss no other functions of the panel than those in the Amendment, and cannot discuss their appointment in general.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must be allowed to rule as the debate proceeds. The Chair is not in the habit of ruling hypothetically.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Amendment No. 40 provides that the experts on the panel would be doctors, psychiatrists and social workers. A panel system already operates successfully elsewhere. Sweden's experience is helpful and relevant—

Mr. Lubbock: Would the hon. Gentleman allow me?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I cannot make up my mind—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to give way or not, but he should make up his mind.

Mr. Lubbock: How is this relevant, if "well-being", on which the hon. Gentleman's Amendment depends, is deleted?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: "Well-being" has not yet been deleted. It is for Mr. Deputy-Speaker, not for me, to rule on what is out of order—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the House will not make the job of the Deputy Speaker more difficult.

Mr. Leslie Hale: On a point of order. Would it not be fair to say that these proceedings have reached the stage of complete farce and that the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) is making quite obviously and quite deliberately—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I may understand the hon. Member's feelings, but that is not a point of order. If he wishes to make progress he would help by allowing the debate to proceed.

Mr. Hale: May I submit that that was a point of order? It is a clear point of order. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment pointed out that when you were not in the Chair the word "well-being" had been deleted. [HON. MEMBERS: "No".] He said that this was a consequential Amendment which need not be discussed. The hon. Member for Chelmsford, who has been doing this all night, is now, with appropriate facial expressions, suggesting that this is a very serious and moving and difficult Bill, and is making it a comedy.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The words "or well-being have been selected for debate, as have Amendments 25 and 40, and the House is able to debate them if it wishes. The question of progress is one for the House generally. I must allow the hon. Member for Chelmsford to proceed.

Mr. Corfield: On a point of order. Is it in order to accuse my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) of having reduced the situation to comedy? No one has worked harder on the Bill than he has. I hope that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) will withdraw that remark.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are wasting time with matters which are not points


of order. I hope that the House will allow the hon. Member for Chelmsford to proceed.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: If criticism is to be levelled at this point, in all fairness—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member would help the House if he did not continue that bogus point of order.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was pointing out that I was not the person who raised the point of order in the first instance.
In Sweden abortion is allowed on certain medical grounds. It is also allowed on humanitarian grounds, and on eugenic grounds, too. The principal grounds are three. Abortion is permissible, first of all, where there is a question of the deformity or weakness of the woman and the birth of the child will endanger life or health. The second is where there has been impregnation under certain conditions in the penal code, particularly as a result of rape. The third is where there is a reason to believe that the expected child will inherit mental deficiency or severe disease or deformity. To those three grounds, long established, a fourth was added in 1954. Abortion is also permissible when, in view of the woman's living and other circumstances, it may be assumed that the birth of the expected child will undermine her mental or physical health.
Those are the grounds for authorising abortion in Sweden, and there are two means of bringing it about. It can be done either through the Royal Medical Board or by two doctors who are acting in combination. It is interesting to note that one of these must be a head physician, a medical officer or a physician of equal rank. An earlier Amendment, containing a similar proposal, was rejected earlier in the debate.
5.45 a.m.
The great majority of abortions carried out in Sweden are authorised by the Board or the panel of experts, either on social grounds or—[Interruption]—I wish that hon. Gentlemen would listen—and the Board is brought into operation when a woman is mentally incapable of giving a valid consent. The Board operates with

great care and it requires a number of documents, including the birth certificate of the woman concerned, a biography and a certificate from her physician. These biographies must be compiled by social workers and—

Mr. Lubbock: On a point of order. May I draw your attention to the fact that the hon. Gentleman is reading his speech and is not merely using copious notes? Is not this contrary to the rules of the House, as laid down in Chapter XXI of Erskine May?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I was not aware that the hon. Gentleman was reading his speech. He would be out of order in doing so, but I did not notice whether or not he was doing so. I shall watch; and, meanwhile, I hope that the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) will leave the matter to the Chair.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I was about to say—

Mr. Robert Cooke: Perhaps while my hon. Friend collects his thoughts—

Mr. Lubbock: His script, more like it.

Mr. Cooke: The continuous conversation in which the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) has been indulging makes it extremely difficult to hear what my hon. Friend is saying. I would be grateful if my hon. Friend could elaborate a little on how these procedures work in Sweden. I have been somewhat disquieted—[Interruption.]—by—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) requires any encouragement to elaborate that point. I think the hon. Gentleman is wasting the time of the House.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: On a point of order. Is it in order for an hon. Member of this House to delay consideration of this necessary social Measure when that hon. Gentleman has not the capacity to put a bun in anybody's oven?

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Hon. Members: Shame.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It would help the interests of the objectives which both hon. Gentlemen wish to achieve if neither of them makes these interventions.

Hon. Members: On a point of order—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot hear a dozen points of order at one time.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: On a point of order. Would you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of your jurisdiction, ask the Clerk to take down the words used by the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds), which were extremely offensive, absolutely gross and disgusting?

Sir Knox Cunningham: He should be ashamed of himself.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I found great difficulty hearing what the hon. Gentleman did say.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Disgusting. Withdraw.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Grant-Ferris, point of order?

Mr. Grant-Ferris: On a point of order. There are certain things that cannot be said in this House about hon. Members. From the wealth of my experience, which is of longer duration than almost any hon. Member here tonight, I assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have never heard such a thing said in this House before. I ask you to ask the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds) to repeat the words, which some of us heard, so that the Clerk may note those words and so that the House may decide what steps shall be taken.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I had great difficulty, as I pointed out, in hearing what the hon. Gentleman had to say, but he would help the House if he would repeat what he said, so that—

Mr. C. Pannell: Mr. C. Pannell rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order—so that I could decide whether it was a remark about which I ought to do something. Or, if he feels perhaps on reflection that it was something that he should withdraw, perhaps he will withdraw it.

Mr. C. Pannell: With great respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it has long been held by the Chair that that which it does not hear it does not inquire further about—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I want to deal with this. It was said of a very well-respected Speaker of the House—Speaker Fitzroy—that, like most great men, he suffered from the infirmity of not hearing what he did not want to hear and not seeing what he did not want to see. I suggest—[Interruption.]—with very great respect, that it is not within—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think the right hon. Gentleman has made his point very clear. I was inviting the hon. Member who made the remark to assist the House in making progress.

Mr. Faulds: Since I am delighted to say I do not have the benefit of the close friendship of the hon. Gentleman to whom I referred, Mr. Deputy Speaker, perhaps, on consideration, it would be fairer now not to make that assertion because I am really not qualified to do so—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Did I understand that the hon. Gentleman was withdrawing his comment?

Mr. Faulds: I was trying to do so.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think it would be more generous, if on reflection the hon. Gentleman wishes to withdraw it, he were to withdraw it more generously than he did.

Mr. Faulds: On your instructions, Mr. Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] I will certainly withdraw that assertion. Sir—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. St. John-Stevas.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Before my hon. Friend resumes, perhaps I might be allowed to finish the question I was asking of him. I was saying that I believe that in Sweden, because of this procedure that my hon. Friend is describing to the House, there is a certain amount of delay, and that this has caused people not to go before the regular authorities but to seek illicit abortions outside the normal arrangement. Would he please deal with that point?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I will deal with the point, if ever I am allowed to come to it. I would point out that had I been allowed in the first place to have made my few remarks I would have finished them about ten minutes ago. A great majority of abortions in Sweden are actually authorised by the Board and not by the two doctors together. One classification is on social grounds of a quasi-medical character, and the other classification is on eugenic grounds.
I had forgotten, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I had been insulted earlier by the suggestion that I read my speech. I have never read a speech in this House. I do, however, refer to notes. I wonder whether I could make that plain to the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock)—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman knows exactly what he is doing. I hope that he will not pursue this but will proceed to his speech.

6.0 a.m.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am not pursuing it. I forgot to mention the matter and would like to put it right in the record for posterity that I do not read my speeches but do use notes.
The Board also comes into operation when a woman is mentally incapable of giving valid consent. The Board requires a number of documents—birth certificate, a biography and a certificate from the physician. The biography has to be fairly full, and is compiled by social workers. There are in existence in Sweden abortion counsellor centres and other social agencies where the fullest possible data can be obtained. If we had a panel of this kind, it would be desirable to associate its operation with such centres. The questions of parents, childhood environment, education, finances, housing and health are all gone into, and provision is made for visits in the home by social workers. This all shows the great lengths to which the law goes in Sweden to provide for the investigation of all these factors that here are being dealt with in the most vague and undefined terms. Social considerations will be brought in under the first Clause, which provides that total environment can be considered, in that vague phraseology which I will not burden the House with by repeating.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) asked how the Swedish Board operated, and he suggested in a second intervention that sometimes there were long delays. However, that is not my information. I am told that the Board acts swiftly, within a week of receiving documents. If there is a case which is controversial, it is dealt with by a special social psychiatric committee composed of three persons, the Chief of the Burean for Social and Forensic Psychiatry and two others appointed by the Government.
The Chief of the Bureau is assisted by two part-time psychiatrists, and there are four persons, generally gynaecologists, who take it in turns to act as chairman of the committee. In addition, other people are involved who are women experienced in social welfare, and they take turns at being the third member of the committee. There is a similar provision in more general terms in my Amendment providing for social workers to be members of the panel.
Besides considering the evidence in the documents which come before it, the committee has additional powers. It can ask medical specialists for an opinion or arrange for an examination of the applicant for an abortion.
If we had this sort of system, the further question arises of whether there should be some kind of right of appeal. There is no provision for that in my Amendment, and there is none in Sweden—[Interruption.]

Mr. John Wells: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When an hon. Member calls for order because the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) is moving very slowly down the middle of the Chamber, is it in order for the right hon. Gentleman to say "Bloody impudence"?

An hon. Member: Whether he said it or not, it is true.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That was a remark which I certainly did not hear, and, as the right hon. Member for Sowerby has departed, I do not feel that I can pursue it.

Mr. David Steel: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), but may I


remind him that when we discussed the Bill on Report we dealt very fully with an Amendment to appoint a panel to assess all applications for abortions. The Amendments with which we are now dealing are limited, surely, to whether a panel should be appointed to consider abortions under the term "well-being", and the main Amendment which we are discussing is whether "well-being" should or should not be in the Bill. A wide discussion on the appointment of panels has already taken place on Report.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair is in some difficulty, but I think it is clear from selection that Amendment No. 25 was to be debated and I do not think that at this stage I can limit the scope of the debate. Perhaps I did not hear the preceding remark, but I am listening very carefully to the hon. Member for Chelmsford and I will decide from what he says whether it is in order.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am merely exercising my legitimate right to discuss my Amendment, which has been selected by the Chair. It may be that the Chair should not have selected it, but that is not my responsibility. I am in no way criticising the Chair, but I have been subjected to a lot of interruption and a considerable amount of provocation.
The objection to a panel or board has been raised that too many people would know about intimate medical, social and other details. I know that the Minister of State, Home Office is concerned about this. We discussed it in Committee under the heading of procedure of notification. I know that the hon. Lady and the medical profession are concerned about this, but the objection could be met, if such a board were set up, by providing in the regulations that all documents involved in these cases should be treated as confidential. That is what happens in Sweden.
The Swedish law provides that no one in any way concerned may needlessly disclose anything he knows about the case. Correspondence which might arise out of the case is also privileged and all the documents involved in consideration before the board are kept in the files of the board and are marked "secret". Only the woman who is involved may give permission for the documents to be read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have endeavoured to protect the hon. Member and to give him the right to discuss the Amendment, but his Amendment is confined to the use of a panel in matters concerning well-being. I hope that the hon. Member will confine himself to the question of well-being.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I had almost finished what I think you will find was originally a very short speech which got prolonged by constant interruptions and points of order, points of information and other points which were quite unclassifiable during my attempts to deliver it.
The general conclusion I wish to draw is that it is of great significance that a panel similar to the one I have suggested works in Sweden. The pains to which the Swedes have gone to ensure that there is no abuse of their law, which is one of the most liberal this side of the "Iron Curtain", is significant. I am sure that there is a moral here for general application to this Bill. It would have been possible had the Bill been better drafted, to introduce detailed safeguards on the lines of the Swedish model.

Sir D. Glover: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) will not be cross when I tell him that if his two Amendments go to Divisions, I shall be in the opposite Lobby and unable to support him. Despite what he has said, it is very important when dealing with a matter as intimate as this to have at little publicity as possible. It is all very well to say that all the documents would be marked "secret" and "confidential", but in the last fortnight we have had debates and Questions concerning what happens about D Notices. It is possible that things which are confidential on security grounds can get out.
My information, which I put forward with a great deal of humility because I have not anything like the knowledge that my hon. Friend has, is that there is a considerable amount of delay in Sweden because of this rather bureaucratic administrative machine. What is even more disturbing in my information is that as a result in Sweden there is just as much back-street abortion as there was before abortion was legalised. Taking all these things into account, I said in a previous


speech how worried I was about doctors having to take social considerations into account. The Bill will now not ask them to do that to anything like the same extent. Therefore, I do not think that my hon. Friend made out the case for having this panel of experts.
What we want to achieve under the Bill is that a person who can genuinely justify that a baby should be aborted will not be in an atmosphere when she will be frightened to take steps to terminate the pregnancy. What would inevitably happen as a result of having a panel of experts would be that the simpler type of person might be inhibited from going before a panel, which would be rather frightening. Because the panel would be frightening, that type of person would be much more inclined to continue to go to a back-street abortionist. Therefore, many women who even my hon. Friend would be prepared to accept probably should be aborted would not be aborted. There is a good deal of danger in my hon. Friend's proposition.
Further, even a panel of experts, who would be decent and honest people, would be bound to come from amongst the community in which people live. Many people would know which woman had been aborted and which woman had not. I do not think that would create a good social climate in the district. Far too many people going shopping would say, "There is that Mrs. So-and-So. She knows about me". It might all be confidential and secret, but there is not the same relationship between people on such a panel and the woman concerned as there is between doctor and patient. Therefore, the atmosphere, particularly in a small community, could become antisocial. I hope that my hon. Friend will not on this occasion press the Amendment to a Division.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: This is the first time that I have intervened in these debates, but the morning is young. I want to say a few words in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), with whom I disagree about a number of things but never about the really important things. I particularly want to say a few words in support of Amendment No. 25 after the extraordinary outburst from an

honourable and hirsute Member opposite, who suddenly popped in and who has now popped out again.
The example of Sweden has been advanced in discussing the proposal for a panel of experts. The Royal Medical Board in Sweden was discussed by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) doubted whether this was a good precedent because of the delays which he said accompanied the work of the Royal Medical Board. My hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) also said that there were grave delays and that it was undesirable because of the publicity which could be attracted to the case of a woman who wanted to terminate her pregnancy.
There are these different arguments, but the House should be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford for drawing our attention to a very important problem, which is the qualification required when the decision to abort is reached. A number of qualifications are needed before the criteria for an abortion can be assessed. An abortion is a very fearful thing.
We are discussing this within the context of well-being. I confess that I never want to hear this word again, having sat through this entire debate, but we are discussing this in the context of well-being. The qualifications required in the decision to abort are qualifications which many medical practitioners will not possess. The qualifications required are those which might be more easily found in a psychiatrist or a social worker.
The Bill specifically refers to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman, and this raises the rôle of the psychiatrist in a decision to abort. I do not think it is enough to say that if a gynaecologist comes to the view that an abortion is to be permitted this is sufficient. I do not see that the case is fully made out for a panel of exports in the way which has been suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford, but this question of the qualifications required in a decision to abort is something which is troubling me, and it is something to which the House should address itself more thoroughly.

Mr. McNamara: I intend to make only a short contribution to the debate, because many of the points have been made by various speakers.
I think that one should disagree wholeheartedly with some of the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Ormskirk. I think that he has built a strange sort of Walter Mitty aura about himself, when one considers what his hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford is trying to achieve. I think that one of the essential facts to remember is that we are trying to lift the burden from the doctor when he is not qualified to make the decision. It is as simple as that. There are circumstances in which a psychiatrist or a social worker knows more about the total environment, which remains in the Bill, and is almost equivalent to well-being. Such a person can examine the situation for the woman who is asking for her pregnancy to be terminated, and I think that this is worthy of more consideration on the Floor of the House.
I am opposed to the Bill in principle, but, nevertheless, I think that we are entitled to suggest methods by which it can be improved, while still respecting the wishes of the House to get the Measure through. I hope, therefore, that enough has been said to get a reasoned reply, if this is necessary, and I think it is, from the Government, and perhaps some Amendments will be introduced in another place which might go some way to meet the situation which we are discussing here.

Mr. John Wells: I am attracted to the idea put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) about a panel of experts, but he specifically mentioned the Swedish model a number of times during his speech, and I feel compelled to put one or two questions to him about his personal practical experience of the working of the Swedish Health Service.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Do not bother.

Mr. Wells: I am speaking not only of this section of it, but of the Health Service as a whole. I am delighted to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health here. He is well aware of the shortage of staff in our Health Service, but ours is affluent with staff compared with its Swedish counterpart, this

wonderful notional model which my hon. Friend has put before us and told us how wonderfully it works. This is just not so in practice, and this is one reason why two of my hon. Friends have referred to the continuing large number of back-street abortions which take place in Sweden, despite this wonderful theoretical pattern.
6.15 a.m.
If we ask for a panel of experts—and it is an attractive idea—the two Ministers present will both say that they are short of staff, they have no money to pay for such things, and so on. But, in this connection, let us consider the example of Chile, a predominantly Catholic country, unlike Sweden, which is predominantly Lutheran or agnostic. In Chile, so I am assured, no abortion is performed unless three doctors of seniority have given their view.
We were much impressed by the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern), when he stressed how unsuitable it would be if two young inexperienced practitioners were permitted to cause an abortion to be performed. In Chile, by contrast, where many abortions are done, although it is a predominantly Catholic country, the operations are performed in carefully controlled circumstances, on the recommendation of an expert panel. The members of the panel are all medical men of standing and, therefore, men of experience and human understanding. I feel that such a procedure would meet the difficulty which the hon. Member for Shettleston emphasised.

Sir M. Galpern: No, I am afraid not. I would still wish to have a panel with sociological experience to assist on the question of environment.

Mr. Wells: I take that point. I understood the hon. Gentleman to refer in his speech to the great cities and, in particular, to Glasgow. I was casting my mind to Chile, which is a sparsely populated country, and my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford was directing his mind to Sweden, which has a mini-population compared with ours. For my part, I should be glad to accept a panel of experts, but I would prefer them to be medical, and, moreover, men of standing and experience. I have a doubt at the back of my mind about the working


of the wonderful Swedish model about which we have been told.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Alice Bacon): If I may say so, this has been a rather abortive discussion in that it has related to well-being. The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) has spoken of a panel only where well-being is under consideration. Although we have taken the reference to well-being out of one part of the Bill, we have not yet taken it out of subsection (1,a,ii), which at the moment provides:
in determining whether or not there is such risk of injury to health or well-being account may be taken …
and so on. That refers to the previous paragraph, from which we have now deleted the reference to well-being.
It seems to me, therefore, that we have been rather wasting our time in discussing the question, when everybody is of opinion that "well-being" should be taken out of the other parts of the Bill as it has been taken from paragraph (i).

Mrs. Knight: Bearing in mind all that we have just heard, I should point out that we are also discussing Amendment No. 40, which has nothing to do with the word "well-being". It refers to Clause 1(1,b), which deals with the risk that if the child were born it would suffer such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped. It is to Amendment No. 40 that I wish to address my remarks, beginning with the situation in Sweden, to which several hon. Members have referred.
During a fairly recent visit to Sweden, I took the opportunity to find out as much as I could about the panel arrangement which is advocated in the Amendments. I came to the conclusion that the Swedish health service works the system extremely well and that its efficiency and speed of decision has a great deal to teach us. The panel goes into the matter carefully and quickly. It is wrong for hon. Members to suggest that because the system exists there the back-street abortion figures were not and are not abated because certain types of abortion are legal in Sweden. In other countries where abortion has been legalised and where there is not the panel system there is still

the problem of the rise in the figures of back-street abortions.
The rejection of the earlier Amendment which sought to have as one of the two medical men deciding whether a woman should have an abortion—

Mr. W. O. J. Robinson: On a point of order. I shall apologise if I am wrong, but I understand that the Amendment refers to a proviso—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow the hon. Member to make his point.

Mr. Robinson: I am worried about this because I want to follow it. I understand that the Amendment refers to a proviso in Section 1(1,b) and a panel to be appointed to deal with cases arising from it. As I understand it, the only proviso is in Amendment No. 25, and I should like to know how the Amendment the hon. Lady is discussing comes within the proviso.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The debate arises on Amendment No. 17, which is to delete the word "well-being". But we are also discussing Amendment No. 25, which is also concerned with well-being, and Amendment No. 40, which, as the hon. Lady says perfectly correctly, deals with Clause 1(1,b), and which is rather wider than the Amendment concerning well-being that we discussed earlier.

Mr. Robinson: Amendment No. 40 refers to a panel to deal with matters prescribed in the proviso to Clause 1(1,b). I submit that there is no proviso to Clause 1(1,b), unless it is referred to in an Amendment which has been called.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The proviso is the one that would be inserted if the House decided to carry Amendment No. 25. The Chair is in some difficulty, but the hon. Lady has not yet said anything that I understand to be out of order.

Mrs. Knight: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. These are most important matters and they should be discussed clearly in the context which we have given them on the Notice Paper.
The rejection of the Amendment which would have provided that there should be


expert guidance on whether an abortion should be carried out makes Amendment No. 40 all the more important, because we should not undertake decisions of this kind without going into them very carefully. The experts referred to in Amendment No. 40 are doctors, psychiatrists and social workers. This is an important point to recognise. They would be persons well versed in the facilities available to help women in difficulties with their pregnancies. A panel of this sort might have to deal with all kinds of difficulties. The difficulty might be one of housing. A social worker on the panel would surely be able to say whether or not the difficulty facing the woman could be resolved by means available. There are plenty of remedies at the disposal of local authorities, which is very relevant when we are dealing with such a very important matter as abortion.
The difficulty in which the woman finds herself may well be that she already has an ample quiverful. If so, and if the extra work entailed in having an extra child is too much for her, a social worker would surely be able to bring in the home help service, which is there to help women in such situations. If the difficulty is financial, there are plenty of ways in which the financial difficulties of a woman who is pregnant can be resolved. If it is suggested that she may have a handicapped child, as Clause 1(1,b) visualises, the difficulty may be able to be resolved within the scope of existing facilities.
The difficulty about abortion is that if it is to be done at all, it ought to be done quickly. The early days of pregnancy are fraught with difficulty, and the woman is in a difficult emotional state when she would be a most likely candidate for abortion. Psychiatrists have said that if the woman can be helped over this period—the panel would surely offer such help—frequently the difficulty resolves itself because it is of a purely temporary nature. It is important to recognise that it is frequently a difficult period that can be got over with the help that is available.
The two doctors, which is all that we have at the moment, and will be all that we have if the Amendments are not carried, are not really capable of saying what help is available through social welfare locally because it is a very com-

plicated field. There is no reason to suppose that a panel would delay matters in a disastrous way for the pregnant woman. It is important to recognise that all aids possible should be invoked before abortions are carried out.
That is why I support the Amendments. Hon. Members have had reservations about them because of the delay which they felt might be caused. I do not think that that is a valid ground. After all we are contemplating a serious action. Even the sponsors of the Bill have not tried to say that abortion is not a serious business. It is. If it is, then surely we ought to use what methods we can to avoid abortions. This is what this series of Amendments seeks to do. If we were to have a panel to give expert advice I am quite sure abortions would be fewer, and provided such a panel worked speedily I cannot see any reason why it would not be of very real and lasting benefit.

6.30 a.m.

Mr. Harold Gurden: I hope that my remarks will not be taken as a bit more filibustering, because this is the first time I have spoken on any occasion on this matter in the House. That is not exactly my own fault, because every time I have attempted to make some comment there has been a Motion to end the debate.
I want to support this argument which has been put forward for a panel of experts to judge these individual cases. In some cases which have come to my attention in my constituency abortions have been occasioned by pressure from the husband upon the wife when it has been discovered that an additional child is to be born into the family. I believe it to have been often the case that the woman would not herself have chosen to have had the abortion, had it not been for the pressure put upon her by her husband. Certainly he has, very often, good grounds for being annoyed—because of the home conditions, perhaps the amount of earnings, perhaps the housing conditions, or because of many other things.
However, we all know that it is often the case that a woman who is about to have a child would wish, no matter what the conditions, to avoid an abortion. I am told by doctors and social workers that it is the pressure put upon wives by the husbands which is often the cause of


tremendous family trouble, and at last the wife is persuaded that an abortion should take place. This, to me, is a very good argument for a panel of experts who, I suppose, would be able to go into all the facts of the case and to discover whether or not it is the wish of the mother that the child should be born. Husbands are, of course, subject to all sorts of pressures themselves, but it is a pretty cruel thing when a husband causes trouble at home just because another child is to be born. I think that, whatever the circumstances of a revision of this law, it is essential that we have a panel of experts to go into all these matters.
On recent occasions doctors have told me that women are coming into the surgeries, at this moment, and saying that it is the law that abortion can now be obtained. They think the Bill has been passed through Parliament. Doctors are already receiving far too many inquiries from patients for abortions to take place. If we had a panel of experts the doctors would be in a much better position.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's remarks. He is talking about people in the country getting a distorted view of the Bill. I cannot see how that relates to the Amendments under discussion.

Mr. Gurden: I understood that the Chair had chosen these three Amendments for debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that therefore I would be in order to discuss the work that such panels would be expected to do.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct in that supposition, but I understood him to be talking about the general impression in the country about the Bill and that has nothing to do with the Amendments. At least, he has so far not related it to them.

Mr. Gurden: In cases where women are going to a doctor for an abortion, it would be much better if the doctor could explain to them that there is to be set up a panel of experts who could go into the facts of the case. The doctor might not be able to know all the details.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is still somewhat wide of the Amendments. What is at issue is not

what will assist the doctor at the moment but whether provision for panels should be included in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman must address himself to the Amendments.

Mr. Gurden: I accept your Ruling, of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I support the proposition that, in the circumstances, there should be a panel of experts to go into these cases. I am sure that doctors as a whole would welcome it, whether or not they support the Bill in principle.

Mr. W. O. J. Robinson: I make no apology for rising to speak for the first time on this Bill. I have sat here practically the whole time during the night. I was interested in the arguments put by the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas). The idea of having a panel to assist in this matter is very attractive. But the point which I endeavoured, wrongly, to make in a point of order related to the purpose for which the panel would be appointed.
The point is that Amendment No. 40 deals with the appointment of
… a panel of experts … to carry out the duties prescribed in the proviso to section 1(1)(b) …
and, in order to find that proviso, I have to look at Amendment No. 25, which says:
Provided that no termination shall he carried out on the ground of well-being …".
These two Amendments must necessarily hang on the question of well-being, but when I turn to the Bill as amended so far, I find in Clause 1(a,i) that the word "well-being" has been removed. So, as the Bill stands, it would be illegal to terminate a pregnancy on the ground of well-being. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman is putting forward an argument to establish a panel to approve what, at this stage of the Bill, would be an illegal operation.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: The point put so cogently by the hon. Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. W. 0. J. Robinson) has already been dealt with by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I want to say a few words on the application of these panels and how effective they have proved in Sweden.

Mrs. Renée Short: The right hon. Gentleman should do his homework.

Mr. Fraser: I will read the hon. Lady some figures. It is surely common ground between us in this House that abortions should not be carried out which are not necessary to the well-being of the families involved. We all agree, I am sure, that the fewer abortions there are the better. One of the things which emerges from the Swedish system of panels is the quick check which they are able to carry out. There has been a considerable diminution in the number of abortions authorised over the years—[Interruption.]—and perhaps the hon. Member would listen to some of the figures on this point. In 1949 there were 5,000 applications, of which 89 per cent. were agreed. By 1962 the number of applications had dropped to 4,200, of which 69 per cent. were approved.
There are two points which emerge from this. One is that prior to the existence of these boards, the whole weight had been put on the two medical officers concerned and they had not looked into the cases with sufficient depth. They had not available to them the social research units and the other units on psychiatry, the units on reconciliation, and so forth.

Dr. M. P. Winstanley: Dr. M. P. Winstanley (Cheadle) rose—

Sir George Sinclair: Sir George Sinclair (Dorking) rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the right hon. Gentleman giving way?

Mr. Hugh Fraser: I have given way to both hon. Gentlemen.

Sir G. Sinclair: Would the right hon. Gentleman give the figures for illegal abortions for this same period in Sweden, because they are germane to the figures which he has given of the cases considered by the panels.

Mr. Fraser: This is a very good point, but registered figures of illegal abortions do not exist, and they do not exist for the reason that they have been performed in secret. So far as there are figures available they show no rise.

Dr. Winstanley: Would the right hon. Gentleman tell us what percentage of these cases in Sweden were on the ground of well-being?

Mr. Fraser: That is a figure which I can give. Taking a year at random, 1958, the total abortions performed was 2,823; 1,528 were performed regarding the problem of disease, 1,432 regarding weakness, 188 anticipated weakness, 60 on humanitarian grounds, and 67 on eugenic grounds. I think those are the figures which the hon. Gentleman was so anxiously looking for.
I think that the reasons given why the Home Office was unable to give its support and help to this extremely ingenious idea which proved so successful overseas are unfortunate, if they be reasons which can be so simply adduced by the hon. Lady. If the two Amendments put forward were to be adopted, many of the doubts and fears both of the medical profession and of the general public would he removed. It is most unfortunate that these Amendments should not have been regarded with the seriousness they deserve.

Mr. Braine: I did not intend to speak in this particular debate, but I have been somewhat alarmed by the trend of argument which has developed. I think that we are in danger of being misled by what is a superficially attractive argument. I understand fully the motive behind these Amendments. They are an attempt to provide a safeguard whether the reference to "well-being" remains in the Bill or not.

Mr. Maddan: I know it is late, but the hon. Gentleman will recollect that the Amendments are in his name.

Mr. Braine: My name was put down to one of the Amendments because I was certain that there would be a mass of argument on this interesting subject and I wanted to ensure that I was called. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame".] There is no need to be indignant about it. This may have been in error and perhaps I should not have said that. When I put my name down to the Amendment I did so in good faith. I put my name down originally because I thought that Amendment No. 40 was an attractive Amendment. But I had no sooner done so than I realised that there was a snag. I took an opinion. I had no intention of exposing myself to this criticism, but throughout the passage of this Bill I have spoken as I have felt. I have spoken honestly about these


matters. I found that I could not support—[Interruption]

6.45 a.m.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If hon. Members want to make progress, they will not help by intervening in a sedentary position.

Mr. Braine: I understand fully the motives behind these two Amendments. Perhaps that is why I found Amendment No. 40 attractive in the first place. The Amendments provide a safeguard if the reference to "well-being" is to remain in the Bill. The argument, as I understand it, is that the question as to whether well-being may be adversely affected—well-being as opposed to health, for these two terms appear in the Bill as alternatives—is too serious a matter to leave to the two registered medical practitioners. Social factors that have no direct effect on the health of the mother are not medical factors and are not the concern of doctors. This is the thought behind all the speeches that we have heard.
This, I think, is a further illustration of the wrongheadedness of those, both the sponsors of the Bill and the Minister himself, who have rejected the considered view of the British Medical Association and of the Royal College of Physicians and Gynaecologists that one of the two registered medical practitioners should have special experience and qualifications. My hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) thought that the value of having this particular panel was that it would provide expert advice for women seeking an abortion. But this is not the case. The proposal is that there shall be a panel to whom the doctor in the case can refer.
It is a very sad commentary on the way in which this Bill has been conducted that ever since the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health spoke in Committee on the subject of qualifications, since when he has been silent, there has been no guidance from the Minister of Health upon this aspect of the matter to which the medical profession attaches such importance. The considered view of the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists is that these Amendments are not acceptable to them. I will say why. The House must accept the fact

that we may pass an Act of Parliament which says what two registered medical practitioners may or may not do, but it will not make the slightest difference to the number of therapeutic abortions carried on outside this House—[Laughter.] It is now 10 minutes to seven. This gets better as we proceed! The Bill will not make the slightest difference to the number of therapeutic abortions carried out in National Health Service hospitals or nursing homes unless it carries the support and has the respect of the medical profession. There is nothing in the Bill which requires a medical practitioner to carry out a termination if he does not think it necessary.
I strongly suspect that the reason why the Minister of Health has been silent throughout is that he knows that the consultant gynaecologists who control the gynaecological beds in the National Health Service hospitals have been so antagonised by the Bill and by his attitude that there will be no increase, certainly initially, in the number of therapeutic abortions carried out in those hospitals.
It is, therefore, right and proper for Parliament, while not accepting everything that is suggested by the medical profession, at least to pay attention to what is said.

Mrs. Lena Jeger: May I ask when and where the British Medical Association has discussed its pronouncements on Amendments Nos. 25 and 40? With what authority does the hon. Member claim that the medical profession rejects Amendments Nos. 25 and 40, which are the only Amendments which it is in order to discuss?

Mr. Braine: I am sure that the hon. Lady wishes to make progress, and I do not wish unduly to delay the Committee. I was on the point of saying why the responsible leaders of the medical profession do not find the two Amendments acceptable. I felt it my duty—[Interruption.]—it is difficult to engage with half a dozen hon. Members opposite at the same time.
Having put my name to Amendment 40 in good faith, and having listened to the trend of the debate, I considered it my duty to rise, although earlier I had no intention of doing so, and to say that


I did so mistakenly. [Interruption.] It is extremely difficult to try to address the House with a running commentary from right hon. and hon. Members in a sedentary position on the Front Bench opposite. In stark contrast to the attitude which some of them have taken throughout the Bill. We have had hardly a speech from the right hon. Gentleman. What he said about the letter in The Times is utterly misleading, and we have had no apology.

Mr. William Hamling: On a point of order. What has the letter in The Times to do with the Amendment, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that hon. Members will listen to the debate. That is the best way of making progress.

Mr. Braine: I was merely replying to the sedentary interruptions that were coming!—

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Social Security (Mr. Charles Loughlin): On a point of order Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member has declared that he put his name to the Amendments for the sole purpose of being called. He is now speaking against the Amendments. Is this in order, or is it spurious sponsorship for the purpose of getting advantage?

Sir D. Glover: Further to the point of order. Is it not within the rules of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that even if an hon. Member has his name to an Amendment, that does not give him any prescriptive right to be called?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is common practice in the House for hon. Members to put their names to Amendments for a variety of purposes. It is not the job of the Chair, because a name appears on an Amendment, to inquire into the motives of the hon. Member concerned. If he decides later to speak against the Amendment, that is perfectly in order with the Chair.

Sir J. Hobson: May I raise a point with my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine)? If one widens the criminal law and extends the area in which abortion operations can be performed, one does not simply leave it to the discretion of the doctor to deal with it, because he would be subject to

civil liability. He would have to perform abortions, if required, by his medical skill.

Mr. Braine: That is so. But it does not invalidate my point. Many of us want the current practice under case law statutorily defined, and, therefore, the voice of the medical profession on this should be heeded. Bearing in mind my conversations yesterday with representatives of the profession, I was drawn to speak by some of the arguments which I heard. When the hon. Lady—who was as courteous as ever, in stark contrast to some—interrupted me, I was about to say that the profession considers that the doctor who advises on an abortion is the one who should operate.
In some circumstances, the doctor would seek not only the second opinion required by the Bill but a third. A good doctor would refer his patient to the local consultant gynaecologist, or consultant psychiatrist—if mental stress were involved—or consultant paediatrician, if other children were involved. Under a well-conducted local authority there might well be contact between the family doctor and social workers. No doctor in the House would deny that, ultimately, one of the two practitioners who advise on termination, and not a member of a panel, however eminent, would have to carry it out.
The insistence of some of my hon. Friends on experience and qualification in the two practitioners has been repeatedly rejected by the Bill's sponsors. The new suggestion of an advisory panel is not acceptable to the profession. This procedure obtains in other countries. I am not sure about Sweden, but in some countries with liberalised abortion laws, the number of illegal abortions has risen, so foreign experience is hardly our best guide.
We must consider the practical realities in this country. Hon. Members laughed earlier when I referred to the situation outside the House. The Minister knows that precious little will happen in National Health Service hospitals. He knows the shortage of gynaecological beds and the attitude of consultant gynaecologists. I want the House to recognise the realities of the situation and to accept that the B.M.A. and the Royal College have been snubbed by the sponsors of the Bill and the Minister in respect of their request


that at least one of the two doctors should have specialist qualifications and experience are not likely to accept this new suggestion.

Mr. Christopher Price: I am interested in the hon. Member's speech and am trying to follow it, to see its relevance to Amendments Nos. 25 and 40. I know it by heart as well as he does, having heard it six or seven times in Committee. Would he explain how his remarks have relevance to Amendments Nos. 25 and 40?

Mr. Braine: I can lead the hon. Member to water but I cannot make him drink. I have carefully explained that what we do here must bear some relation to the realities outside the House. We can enact an Act of Parliament here, but it would be meaningless if we have not got the support of the doctors. We shall raise the expectations of women all over the country that there will be more therapeutic abortions. But in fact, in the present mood of the medical profession, there will be precious few, for the reasons which I have given. The proposal to have a panel to which the two doctors will go—or one of them will go—for advice is. in the view of the B.M.A., alien to our tradition of inter-professional relationships in this country. With great reluctance, therefore. I cannot support the Amendments and advise the House not to do so.

7.0 a.m.

Mr. Simon Mahon: I am not so sanguine about these Amendments as some right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite appear to be. The hon. Lady the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) made an interesting speech, but she made things appear far too easy when she was talking about the difficulties which face women in pregnancy. In my experience, I have never found that, when people are in great social need, help of the right kind in proportion to that need is available. I do not denigrate in any way the services to which the hon. Lady referred—the local and national health services, the housing authorities and other services, who do an excellent job, but the magnitude of the problem with which they are confronted makes it difficult for them to cope with as serious a case as this or as that mentioned by

my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Lena Jeger). Such cases reach all of us. We have to have priorities, and we cannot say that we have the quantity or quality of people to help those in difficulty, bearing in mind the immediacy of the difficulty, because in this case the help is needed very quickly because of the woman's condition.
The right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) gave some interesting facts and figures about the situation in Sweden. However, few figures have been given to help us to make up our minds on this issue. For example, when we talk about setting up panels of experts, it would help us if we knew the size of the problem. When speaking in the House earlier this month I presented some interesting figures. I will not weary the House by repeating what I said, except to mention that
In Poland, the figure for legal abortions for every 100 live births is 23. In Yugoslavia, there are 25 legal abortions for every 100 live births. In Czechoslovakia, there are 42 legal abortions for every 100 live births. In Bulgaria, there are 53 legal abortion operations for every 100 live births".
This shows the size of the problem and the figures for—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot see what these figures have to do with the Amendment, which requests the setting up of panels of experts.

Mr. Mahon: If we are to establish these panels, we must know how many cases they will have to deal with. If we take a figure of 25 legal abortions per 100 births, then for our population of 54 million, there will be 150,000 per year. As I pointed out:
The figure for Hungary is staggering. In a country with a population of 10¼ million, there are 123 legal abortions for every 100 live births".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd June 1967; Vol. 747, c. 502.]
Nobody has really put forward these statistics in this detail. They indicate that we could have as many as 400,000 legal abortions a year.

Dr. Winstanley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we are discussing the use of a panel in relation to abortions performed for well-being? The figures he has given would not be the total numbers of abortions which would be performed on the ground of well-being.

Mr. Mahon: The hon. Gentleman may be correct, but neither he nor his hon. Friends have attempted to give the House figures showing the possible outcome of this legislation. I mentioned the figure of 400,000. The hon. Gentleman is a respected member of the medical profession and I understand that he was an adviser to the B.M.A. There are about 515 consultants in this country. There would, on the basis of my figures, be 800 cases per consultant per year. That would be an impossible situation.
I have in the past referred to Professor Jeffcoate of the Liverpool University and teaching hospitals. He points out that they might have to plan for 13,000, 150,000 or even 400,000 cases a year. It is feared that if this legislation goes through in its present form, there will be a lowering of standards in the community. People will get used to this sort of legislation, and will demand more. He also presents in proof of this the figures of recurrent abortions for unwanted pregnancies in other parts of the world.
I hope that those who suggest these panels—and, may be, the Ministry—will give U3 some information about who is to have priority. It is a question of priorities. The National Health Service does not have a bottomless purse. The establishment of the panels would have to be paid for, and they would consume the precious time of consultants and of other medical people. The induction of abortion is an urgent operation, so that the panels would have to work quickly. The operation must be carried out within a few weeks, if at all.

Division No. 414.]
AYES
[7.12 a.m.


Albu, Austen
Coe, Denis
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Freeson, Reginald


Allen, Scholefield
Crawshaw, Richard
Gardner, Tony


Archer, Peter
Davies, Dr, Ernest (Stretford)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Armstrong, Ernest
Dell, Edmund
Goodhart, Phitip


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Digby, Simon Wingfleid
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Dobson, Ray
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, w.)


Bagier, Cordon A. T.
Dunnett, Jack
Hamling, William


Barnes, Michael
Dunwoody, Mrs. Cwyneth (Exeter)
Haselcline, Norman


Barnett, Joel
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)


Beaney, Alan
Ells, John
Hooley, Frank


Bidwell, Sydney
Ensor, David
Hornby, Richard


Bishop, E. S.
Faulds, Andrew
Horner, John


Booth, Albert
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Bossom, Sir Clive
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)


Bray, Dr.Jeremy
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Howie, W.


Brooks, Edwin
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Huckfield, L.


Brown,Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Foot, Michael (Ebhw Vale)
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)


Cant, R. B.
Forrester, John
Hunt, John


Carlisle, Mark
Foster, Sir John
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)


Carter-J ones, Lewis
Fowler, Gerry
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;S.P'cras,S.)

Who is to have this priority treatment? Is it to be the feckless girl who has an unwanted pregnancy from time to time; or the decent married woman who is awaiting investigation, or treatment for sterility, or the woman with a positive cervical smear or symptoms that suggest a possible early cancer? I think that the House would give a very quick answer there but bearing my figures in mind, hon. Members must place these Amendments in perspective and say what is and what is not possible.

I appeal to the Minister. I feel, with other hon. Members, that the Ministry of Health could help me and other people. All I have done in the course of these debates has been to apply my small knowledge and my great interest to the benefit of the people. With great respect to the Minister, as an old friend, I think that he should be a bit more forthcoming, though he may have his own reasons for not being so. I do not suggest that this is an easy problem to deal with. It is a great new social and medical departure, and it is one that will have tremendous effects on women and children. I ask my right hon. Friend to give me, if he can, the information for which I ask.

Mr. C. Pannell: Mr. C. Pannell rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put:—

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 136, Noes 59.

Jenkjn, Patrick (Woodford)
Molloy, William
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Moonman, Eric
Short, Mrs. Retiee(W'hampton,N.E)


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Newenc, Stan
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Johnson, Carol (Lewitham, S.)
Norwood, Christopher
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Ogden, Eric
Snow, Julian


Jones,Rt.Hn.SirElwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Oram, Albert E.
Spriggs, Leslie


Jones, T. Alee (Rhondda, West)
Orme, Stanley
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Jutld, Frank
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Stonehouse, John


Kerr,Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Pardoe, John
Swingler, Stephen


Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Park, Trevor
Taverne, Dick


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Orwin, T. W.


Lipton, Marcus
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Loughlin, Charles
Pavitt, Laurence
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Luard, Evan
Price, William (Rugby)
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Lubbock, Eric
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Weitzman, David


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Reynolds, G. W.
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Richard, Ivor
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


MacCoil, James
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Winnick, David


MacDermot, Niall
Robinson, Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P,


McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Worsley, Marcus


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Roebuck, Roy



Mayhew, Christopher
Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Mendeison, J. J.
Ryan, John
Mr. Christopher Price and


Mil Ian, Bruce
Shaw, Arnold, (Ilford, S.)
Sir George Sinclair.


Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Sheldon, Robert





NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Monro, Hector


Alldritt, Walter
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Murton, Oscar


Biggs-Davison, John
Hunter, Adam
Oakes, Gordon


Black, Sir Cyril
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Oswald, Thomas


Braine, Bernard
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Crowder, F. P.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Percival, Ian


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kimball, Marcus
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Delargy, Hugh
Kitson, Timothy
Small, William


Dempscy, James
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Dunn, James A.
Lever, L. M. (M'chstr, Ardwick)
Tinn, James


English, Michael
McBride, Neil
Ward, Dame Irene


Fortescue, Tim
Macdonald, A. H.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Galpern, Sir Myei
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Giimour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Glover, Sir Douglas
Maddan, Martin
Wright, Esmond


Gurclen, Harold
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)



Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Marten, Neil
Sir Knox Cunningham and


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Maude, Angus
Mr. R. Grant-Ferris.

Question, That "or well-being" stand part of the Bill, put accordingly and negatived.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I beg to move Amendment No. 20, in page 1, line 18, to leave out 'substantial risk' and to insert 'certainty'.

Mr. David Steel: On a point of order. Earlier I suggested that certain Amendments should be grouped together, but the House disagreed. I think that the House might regret that decision. May I suggest that with Amendment No. 20 we should discuss Amendment No. 21, in page 1, line 18, leave out 'substantial risk' and insert 'probability'.

Mr. Speaker: What Amendments are selected is a matter for the Chair. If later there is a proposed grouping from the Floor that can be done if the hon.

Member has leave of the House. Is it your wish that Amendment No. 20 and Amendment No. 21 be discussed together? [HON. MEMBERS: "No" The hon. Member has not that leave.

Sir D. Glover: I beg to move,
That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be adjourned.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not prepared to accept that Motion.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: My right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) cannot be here. I am therefore moving this Amendment on his behalf as well as my own as we are co-sponsors of it. We come now to one of the most important debates on the whole Bill, that on subsection (b) of Clause 1, which is the eugenic paragraph. This paragraph is quite different in


principle from the others. It provides for abortion if
there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped".
A different principle is invoked here. The other paragraphs of the Clause allow abortion on grounds of necessity. It is quite different to propose to allow abortion on eugenic grounds.
Had it been possible, I would have preferred to have deleted the Clause entirely. It is not possible to do that, so instead of ending the Clause, we seek to amend it to improve it in some way. The purpose of the Amendment is to tighten up the Clause, to restrict its application, and so, as far as we are able, to get rid of its worst effects. For the words "substantial risk" the Amendment would substitute the concept of certainty, and in this way it would restrict the operation of the Clause to a minimum of circumstances. This would be in accord with the wishes of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Archbishop of York, the Bishop of London, 2nd the Bishop of Durham, who expressed their views in a letter published in The Times on 24th May, 1967, and which is one of the most authoritative statements on this part of the Bill coming from a Christian source.
In the course of this letter, in which the writers consider the scope of the Bill in general and suggest various amendments and improvements, they deal with this particular provision and say this:
Sub-Clause (b) in Clause 1(1) dealing with the risk of a deformed or defective foetus first centres the decision on the foetus in isolation and then makes the decision to terminate depend not upon actual diagnosis of deformity or defect but upon statistical risk. It thus follows not only that in order to destroy one defective foetus there is a risk of destroying healthy foetuses as well, but also that the decision would be made without diagnosis of a particular foetus, and indeed without any particular diagnosis at all.
We think this is too large an invasion of the principle of the value of life to be justified, and we are driven to the view that the case of the risk to the foetus ought to be treated in terms of the risk to the mother, the mother and the foetus being in this way considered together.
That is a most important statement coming from what I suppose is the highest moral authority in this country.
It is vitally important that the Clause should contain clear and unambiguous wording, otherwise, unless the Clause is clear, the inevitable result of its passing into law will be the risk of the slaughter of thousands of potentially healthy children to avoid the birth of a few deformed ones. The words "substantial risk" mean very little. We heard in debates on previous Amendments what a very indefinable term "risk" is. What is the distinction between a risk and a substantial risk? I hope that we can hear something on this from the promoter of the Bill. I am rather amazed that he is not here. I know he has been very assiduous in his attendance.

Mr. Lubbock: Come off it.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: We have been here. [HON. MEMBERS: "So have we"] I know that the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) has been assiduous in his attendance, but there is a principle involved in this provision which to many of us who are critical of the Bill is more important than any other single principle involved in the Bill.

Dr. Winstanley: I have undertaken to reply to this set of Amendments on behalf of the sponsors of the Bill. I have discussed the Amendments very fully with my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) and I assure the hon. Gentleman that he will get a proper answer to what we regard as very serious points.

7.30 a.m.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am very grateful for that courteous intervention. The Amendment seeks to substitute the word "certainty" for "substantial risk". Some moralists find this acceptable because the balance that is being made thereby is between a 100 per cent. certainty of physical deformity against the right to life. If the word "certainty" is inserted into the Clause, there is no risk of the destruction of healthy children, of healthy foetuses, as the price of preventing the birth of a deformed one.
From the moral point of view I do not accept that argument. I merely put it forward as an argument which is acceptable to some people. I do not find it morally acceptable because I take the view that if one is faced with deformity,


one should not blot it out. One should treat it as a challenge to provide care for it, not just get rid of it, and we have the example of the thalidomide children. Anyone who has seen them, and seen what has been done for them, and seen the happy lives they are living, knows how much can be done.
When it comes to a question of one's own convenience being involved, one should hesitate and examine one's own interest before taking any action, and the question which everyone has to raise when it comes to the point of blotting out deformity is "Whose suffering is being relieved? Is it the suffering of the person who has the deformity?"

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a bigger question than that raised by the Amendment.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. I wanted to set it in this wider context.
If certainty is unacceptable, one has to fall back on the word "risk", which is present in the Clause, and this raises the extremely important question of how predictable actual deformity is. This is a question on which I hope we shall hear the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley). I hope that he will speak to this with all the authority of his great medical knowledge, because this is a matter on which the House needs expert advice so that hon. Members can reach a reasonable decision on it.
I am not a doctor, but I have been to some pains to investigate the medical evidence on this, and my conclusion is that the chances of diagnosing a deformity are poor. The best estimate that I can get from medical authorities is that anything from three to five foetuses would have to be sacrificed to prevent the birth of one deformed child. If this is so, a very heavy responsibility rests on a doctor in carrying out an abortion for eugenic purposes.
On this question of predictability I want to look at the question of diseases which are most likely to result in the birth of a deformed child. The most common case is where the mother contracts rubella during the early stages of a pregnancy. One has to consider here not only the actual effect of the disease through the mother on the foetus, but the effect of the disease on the psychological and

emotional life of the mother, and therefore the effect upon the foetus. Rubella can be diagnosed fairly easily, but there is still a considerable element of uncertainty as to what the effect will be upon the foetus, and whether the deformity from which the foetus suffers will be recoverable given adequate medical treatment.
Once one leaves the example of rubella, one finds that other deformities are extremely difficult to diagnose before birth. From among those which can be diagnosed, I cite the two examples of anencephaly and gross hydrocephaly, which cannot be diagnosed before the 32nd week, which is late in the pregnancy. In any case, deformities in this category are really incompatible with human life as such, and the chances are that such a child would either be born dead or would be a monster in the strict sense of the term, that is, a living being but one bearing no real relation to a human being.
I mention two other diseases which come into this problem of deformity, Huntingdon's chorea and muscular dystrophy. In the case of muscular dystrophy, for example, there is a 50 per cent. chance that the foetus may be born deformed, but the difficulty here, as I understand it from my medical friends, is that this is a disease which is very difficult to diagnose during pregnancy.
I have dealt in some detail with particular diseases and the likelihood of deformity, and I am sure that the House will welcome an authoritative and, I hope, objective assessment from the hon. Member for Cheadle when he replies. This whole question is complicated, when one considers the Clause and the delicate balance sought to be established by it between the value of life and deformity, in that one has to consider not only the degree of risk of deformity but also the degree of anxiety on the part of the mother. These are related but distinct issues. What is really important is the risk of deformity to the foetus, and this should he made as objectively assessable as possible.
Now, the other Amendment, No. 23, which would substitute "complete handicap" for "serious handicap". This, again, is a question of degree, and I wish to make plain once more that I do not myself wish to be a party to this sort of


balancing, regarding it as quite abhorrent. But there are those who take a different view, so one must try to use terms capable of definition which will make that balance as delicate and as objective as possible. The term "complete handicap" is preferable to "serious handicap" because it is a more objective term and it requires a higher degree of deformity to be taken into account in the balance of considerations.
I have spoken briefly on the Amendment. My own position is that I would much rather see the Clause out of the Bill. Indeed, if the Clause were taken out, a great deal of my objection to the Bill would go with it.

Mr. Orme: That is difficult to understand. The hon. Gentleman has opposed the Bill throughout this whole debate. What does he mean by saying that, if this one Clause were out, he would support the Bill?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I had three objections to the Bill. One was the question of well-being—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is being tempted into going completely out of order.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Virtue has prevailed, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry that I am not allowed to yield to temptation.
All that I can do is to ask the hon. Gentleman to believe that this is the part of the Bill about which I feel most strongly. Other hon. Members feel more strongly about other parts, but this is the part that is most abhorrent to me.
If one approached the Bill in a hardhearted way, it would be much more acceptable to allow the child to be born to see if it were deformed, and then to take the decision whether to rid oneself of it after having the opportunity of assessing the degree of deformity. After all, if we look at the matter logically and coldly that would be the much more reasonable and sensible course. It would eliminate all the risk of destroying potentially healthy babies that there is when one makes a diagnosis knowing that there is perhaps only one chance in three of being right. When the matter is put in that way, we recoil in horror and revulsion. But that is not because there is any qualitative difference between the

removal of a deformed foetus before birth and the removal of a deformed child after birth.
The difference is imaginative, and it is significant that the second situation strikes our imaginations more forcibly. We should proceed by some kind of reasoning and see that the arguments of logic which apply to the second situation also apply to the first.

Dr. Winstanley: It might be helpful to hon. Members wishing to speak later if I give the sponsors' attitude to the Amendments at this stage. I shall try to be brief, but I recognise that we have reached a crucial part of the Bill, that there is a substantial division of opinion on this point, and that opinions are strongly held. I also recognise that points of substance have been put and should be answered. Having said that, I should make it clear that the sponsors regard this subsection as vital. We believe that the Bill would be very seriously damaged if it were weakened or destroyed.
There is a lot of doubt about the existing state of the law. I think that there are very few people in this country, whether they are supporters or opponents of the Bill, who are prepared to regard the present state of the law on termination of pregnancy as wholly satisfactory. But there is one aspect of the law that is utterly clear. That is that it does not at present, whether in case law or Statute law, in any way provide for the termination of a pregnancy on the grounds of the potential deformity or abnormality of the child.
I acknowledge that from time to time pregnancies are terminated on these grounds, but that is done by finding a way round the existing law, perhaps by arguing that the termination is done for another reason. The fact remains that pregnancies are terminated on these grounds and that the law does not at the moment provide for it. The first thing that we have to decide is whether we want it to be provided for or not, but we must assert that it is not provided for at the moment.
7.45 a.m.
Much has been said in our discussions about the attitude of the medical profession. There are obviously—we all fully understand it—many shades of


opinion within the medical profession. There are doctors holding quite opposite points of view. But in so far as one can assess official opinion—in this connection we usually quote bodies such as the British Medical Association Special Committee or the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists—there is no doubt that those two bodies are in favour of this aspect of the matter being clarified and laid down clearly in the law.
They feel that doctors at the moment taking steps which they sometimes feel to be necessary are in jeopardy because of the lack of clarity in the law. They feel that the matter should be cleared up and the profession safeguarded. That is the informed medical opinion, that of the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. I think that I am right in saying that the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) will be joining me on this point.
Let us accept, too, that none of the sponsors regards this as a desirable procedure for a moment. But we argue that from time to time it is a necessary procedure, limited in number—and, it is important to emphasise, limited even in relation to the total number of potentially malformed or abnormal babies. It is necessary to remind the House from time to time—it should be completely clear—that the intention of the Bill is to state what shall not be unlawful if it be done on the opinion and advice of two registered medical practitioners acting in good faith.
This states what shall not be unlawful if it is done—if it has to be done at all. In every case the duty of the medical practitioners should be, wherever possible to encourage aid and support the mother towards term with the pregnancy. Nevertheless, there are cases—they have arisen in my experience and, I am sure, in the experience of every doctor, if to a limited extent—in which one feels that this is the only possible course to adopt.
In deciding what course to adopt, it is necessary for the doctors concerned, as in so many of these matters, to have regard to the whole situation. So, while the subsection deals with the state of the foetus, whether it is likely to be seriously deformed, nevertheless a decision as to whether to recommend a termination of

the pregnancy will be taken in relation to the circumstances as a whole. In other words, if there is a probability—put it as high as that—that a given foetus may be born seriously handicapped, the doctor will assess the temperament and psychology of the mother and the father and will have to assess the manner in which they will be able to cope with the situation. They may find that the mother is of a temperament, of a type and character, on whom this would put very considerable strain, and it may be argued that this should be dealt with on the question of her health. As the foetal condition is such an important factor in the matter, it ought to be specifically provided for.
There is no doubt that there are parents who face up to this possibility, the mother goes through to term and has an abnormal child, and she looks after it, copes with it and brings up other children and the situation never arises. On the other hand, there are cases which crop up from time to time in which the very reverse happens.
I should like to refer—I think it is relevant—to a case which came under my control and for which I was in part responsible for a time. This was some time ago now when, perhaps, our knowledge was not quite so advanced as it is now. This was a mother who had already two children. She suffered from German measles extremely early in the pregnancy. I will come to that point later, because I have been asked about it. Therefore, there was a strong probability that this child would be born abnormal. She was referred for consideration of the termination of this pregnancy. Termination, after due consideration, was not carried out, and she was encouraged one way and another to continue with the pregnancy. Her anxiety and apprehension increased, particularly towards the later period of the pregnancy, and this is important because there comes a time when termination ceases to be a practical propostion, because the pregnancy is too far advanced.
Ultimately, she was delivered of the child. The child was born blind, deaf, mentally defective, and had spastic paralysis. This woman had a nervous breakdown and was later admitted to hospital and was under care for some time. Her husband,


who, unfortunately, was not the most helpful and reliable of persons, was of no great assistance, and it is was necessary for the other two children to go for a time into the care of the local authority.
This family was virtually destroyed by an event which, I believe—and I say most sincerely to hon. Members who, I know, feel strongly about this matter—could have been prevented.
I know that this carries with it—let us face up to this—the risk that occasionally a perfectly normal baby will be destroyed. Let us make no bones about it. I accept this. I accept that this is a possibility, and on that very point the hon. Member for Chelmsford has suggested—and there is logic in the suggestion—that since this is a possibility let us not intercede at this early stage but let us let the pregmancy reach its conclusion so that we can really know, and then do something which is virtually infanticide. There is logic in the argument.
I ask the hon. Member to consider that this mother who could be helped, in the early stage, must face anxiety and apprehension, which mounts and mounts during the pregnancy. She does not know whether she will get a baby which will make her very happy or one which will make her very sad. This is the point. It is the waiting period with ever-increasing strain which does the damage. One can avoid it only by termination early in the pregnancy.
With regard to the assessment of the degree of risk, all I can say is that knowledge of this is not clear yet by any means, but we do have certain criteria upon which we can make certain judgments by which we can have some certainty. We know, for example, that if German measles, probably the commonest of the infections concerned, comes within the first two or three weeks after conception, there is a probability bordering on a virtual certainty of abnormality.
But it is true that as time passes the risk declines at a fairly rapid rate, and I accept that once we get past the third month or about the fourteenth week, it ceases to be a probability and then becomes a possibility which declines as time advances. It would be wrong for me to attempt to be precise. Figures have been given in papers which have been pub-

lished by a number of workers, but they give slightly different figures.
Something has been said about the possibility of diagnosis. This is important. Radiological methods are not helpful till it is too late. There are other tests, by the amniotic fluid, and so on, which give reliable evidence on which one can base a firm, or fairly firm, prediction. This would satisfy the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) because he would feel that we could say with certainty. But we are not in that position of being able to say with certainty. We can only make predictions.

Mr. Michael McGuire (Ince): Can the hon. Gentleman say how far tests of the unborn are able to determine not merely whether the child is likely to be born blind or deaf or mentally deficient, but whether it will be born with missing limbs but with a brain functioning perfectly?

Dr. Winstanley: No precision can be applied to this at all. Early tests cannot reveal anything of that kind except on a statistical basis, which is not the test the hon. Gentleman means. We are only able to say that certain kinds of abnormality result from certain diseases or circumstances.
We are still in a situation of uncertainty. I accept that and all the limitations which surround it. But I ask the House to understand that it is necessary to have this provision in the Bill both for the protection of members of the medical profession, who are at present doing this in good faith because they believe it necessary, and also for the very real relief of human suffering.

Mr. F. P. Crowder: One has heard it said in responsible quarters that, to prevent the advent of a seriously handicapped child, between three and five healthy children would probably be destroyed. Do those figures mean anything?

Dr. Winstanley: The hon. and learned Gentleman is asking for blanket figures. They will vary according to the kind of criteria applied by different workers and according to different types of patient. In other words, one does not make the decision purely on a statistical probability but on what is going to happen if the


woman has an abnormal child. Once she has it, what the particular risk was before is of no great moment to her.
But I accept the implication of the hon. and learned Gentleman's question. There is this possibility. One hopes to keep it to the minimum. The usual procedure is for the doctor to give help and support and try to assist the family to have the child, cope with it and understand that it is an event which need not be tragic. But if doctors in good faith come to the conclusion that the result of a pregnancy in these circumstances would be catastrophic to the family, if not specially to the health of the woman—

Mr. Simon Mahon: I am loath to intervene in the hon. Gentleman's interesting speech, but I would draw his attention to an article in The Lancet as recently as 1st January, 1966. It was called "The Paediatrician and the Termination of Pregnancy". It states:
Of 270 children born after infection in the first 16 weeks of pregnancy, 157 survived without defect and 37 with minor defects. 16 children died in the first 2 years of life but only 8 of these were malformed. There were 11 spontaneous abortions, 6 therapeutic abortions having been excluded from the series. 14 children were lost to follow-up. 33 only had serious abnormality.

8.0 a.m.

Dr. Winstanley: Those figures do not help because they cover the period up to the 16th week and I have acknowledged that from becoming a virtual certainty during that time it becomes a probability and then a possibility.
When one talks about the possibility of a child not being born which might be a healthy child, I want the House to remember another possibility. It is my experience, and that of other doctors, that a woman who has been persuaded against her will to continue a pregnancy and then bears an abnormal deformed child seldom becomes pregnant again. The experience may be such that she will not under any circumstances become pregnant again. It is my experience that with the woman who does have a termination of pregnancy the very first thing she wants to do afterwards is to become pregnant again and have a family. I have seen families born which would never have been born had relief not been allowed under this clause.
I hope that the House will not support this Amendment. I do not think that it would be helpful in any way—even from a terminalogical point of view.

Mr. Ian Percival: The hon. Gentleman said that this is the most important part of the Bill and what he has endeavoured to do is to give us the view of the sponsors of the intention behind the Clause and the manner in which it operates and the sort of evidence which would be available. Could he complete this process, because there is one other element of the operation of this Clause upon which he has not yet touched?
Does the hon. Gentleman say that if the matters stipulated in his sub-paragraph are established and the woman wishes to have an abortion, it will be the duty of the doctors to perform the abortion, or does he say that there will still be some residual discretion in the doctors? If so, on what criteria are they to operate? I think that he would agree that without answering this question we do not have the complete picture.

Dr. Winstanley: I cannot answer the question as completely as the hon. Gentleman would like, but I will do my best. Most certainly there is a residual discretion. The two doctors acting in good faith may think that a certain thing will not be unlawful if they decide it should be done. There will be many circumstances in which they will decide it should not be done and there will be other circumstances in which they will decide that it should. I regret that medicine is not the exact science which the hon. Gentleman would like. These are the kind of decisions which doctors have to make and they will be happy to make them if they have the authority to do so.

Sir J. Hobson: The doctor will have to have a great deal of knowledge as to the risks, because he could be subject to an action for negligence if he failed properly to perform the operation and a deformed child was born, so that in cases of doubt there will be substantial pressure on the doctor by the civil law for the operation to be performed.

Dr. Winstanley: I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman ought to answer his own questions on the law rather than ask me, but I am glad to assist if he wishes. If a doctor acting in good faith


comes to the conclusion that the course he recommends is in the best interests of the patient, I doubt whether he would ever find himself in difficulties with the law.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): Order. I understand that it was suggested at an earlier stage by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) that Amendment No. 21 should be discussed together with the Amendment now under consideration, but objection was taken.
I should point out to the House that in the event of Amendment No. 20 being negatived and the words "substantial risk" remaining in the Bill, it would not be open to the House to proceed to debate Amendment No. 21 which also raises the point whether "substantial risk" should be left out.
Therefore, I think that it would be more for the convenience of the House if Amendment No. 21 were discussed together with this Amendment.

Mr. John M. Temple: On a point of Order. Is it not a little unusual to change the order of selection after the hon. Member who said he was in charge of the Bill has spoken? He has given his views on the Amendment and presumably he would have given his views on the Amendments together had they been selected together. However, as I understand the rules of the House, he is now precluded from doing that, because he cannot speak again when the House has reached this stage of the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that the hon. Member in charge of the Bill has not spoken on this Amendment. Therefore, that point of order does not arise.

Mr. Temple: On a point of order. The hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) said that he was speaking on behalf of the hon. Member who was in charge of the Bill, so at that moment of time I presume that he was the Member in charge of the Bill, because he is dealing with it for his hon. Friend.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that I can simplify this. I do not think that that point arises, because the hon. Member who has just spoken was opposing the

Amendment. Therefore, his opposition to the Amendment is equally valid in respect of Amendments Nos. 20 and 21. The only point at issue is what the position would be if the Amendment were carried. If it were carried, it would be open to the House to consider whether the word "certainty" or the word "probability" should be inserted. In the event of this Amendment being negatived, there would be no opportunity for proceeding to discuss Amendment No. 21. Therefore, I thought it right to draw attention to that fact.

Sir Knox Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If Nos. 20 and 21 are taken together, can there be a vote on each?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Certainly. In the event of Amendment No. 21 being carried it would be open to the House to proceed to decide whether the word "certainty" or the word "probability" should be substituted for the words in the Bill. But in the event of Amendment No. 20 being negatived, no further question would arise because the House would have decided that the words "substantial risk" should remain. Therefore, any hon. Member who wishes to speak to this Amendment is entitled to argue, if he is in support of the Amendment, whether he prefers to substitute the word "certainty" or the word "probability".

Mr. Hogg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I only intervene to be helpful. I would suggest, if it is open to the House, that the two Amendments might be discussed together. If they are not, the probability is that the second Amendment will not be discussed at all. I feel, with respect to my hon. Friends, that the House would wish to have before it the arguments relevant to both. This is the only way that I can see, within the rules of order, of achieving that result.

Mr. Charles Doughty: On a point of order. The selection list which I hold in my hand says that Amendment No. 21 has been selected, plus Amendment No. 26, in page 1, line 20, at the end to insert:
(ii) in determining whether or not there is such a probability, a child shall be deemed to be seriously handicapped if it would be so mentally sub-normal as to be incapable of


being educated by a local education authority and it would be so physically sub-normal as to be incapable of existence otherwise than in a hospital or similar institution.
In view of what you have said, that Amendment No. 21 will be dropped if No. 20 is negatived, I presume that when we proceed with the next Amendment we can discuss Amendment No. 26, but not No. 21 because it seeks to insert words at the end of the subsection which could properly be inserted, assuming that Amendment No. 20 is negatived. Therefore, the position, I submit, is that at the conclusion of discussing these Amendments and No. 21, we can proceed to discuss Amendment 26.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right. Just as Amendment No. 23 was selected for discussion with No. 20, in the same way No. 26 was selected for discussion with No. 21. What is now suggested is that all four Amendments should be discussed at the same time.

Sir Knox Cunningham: If Amendment No. 21 is discussed now with Amendment No. 20, what will happen? Will my hon. Friend be able to make a speech on that? Will the hon. Gentleman who has already spoken also be able to speak on this again?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No, there will no opportunity for a second speech on this. I observe that the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), who has already spoken, is a signatory to Amendment No. 20 on which he has addressed the House. He did not, in fact, sign Amendment No. 21.

Mr. Gurden: On a point of order. I am not clear about Amendment No. 30, in page 2, line 5, to leave out 'formed in good faith' and to insert: 'based on reasonable grounds'.
I understand what you said about speaking to these Amendments, but, as I see it, there is a distinct difference between the word "certainty" and the word "probability" here. I should have thought that you would rule that there could be a vote. I was not clear what your answer was to that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is certainly a difference between "certainly"

and "probability". It is obvious that of those hon. Members who wish to delete "substantial risk", some would prefer to insert "certainty" and others would prefer to insert "probability". They can argue both propositions in the course of this debate. If the House decides that "substantial risk "should remain, no further Question arises. There would be no opportunity or point in a subsequent Division.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I follow the logic of your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but may I put this point without in any way intending any discourtesy to the Chair? Had your Ruling been given earlier on this matter, and had the Amendments then been taken together, I would have been able to address myself to both Amendments. When the matter was put to the House, there was objection from a large number of hon. Members and we proceeded on the assumption that there would be two separate discussions. By your Ruling being given late, however, you have deprived me of a chance of speaking to the second Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member is in a special position. He moved the Amendment. Therefore he, and he alone, will have a right of reply on the Amendment. Therefore, he is not deprived of any rights by the Ruling which I have given.

Sir J. Hobson: Further to the point of order. I wished earlier to exercise a right of reply, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but owing to the operations of the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) I did not have the opportunity. What happens if a Member is closured before getting a chance to reply?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That does not arise on this point of order

Sir M. Galpern: We have had to devote a little time to the points of order. Had Amendment No. 18, which would have deleted paragraph (b), been called, it would have helped many hon. Members. Nevertheless, Mr. Deputy Speaker, one accepts the Ruling which you have given from the Chair.
The hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) has presented a fair and honest case in support of the paragraph. The effect that it had upon me was to


confirm my opposition to the whole Clause. The hon. Member has confirmed and underlined all the doubts that exist in hon. Member's minds. He admits readily that normal, healthy embryos will be destroyed as a result of the Clause. He admits that there is difficulty in diagnosing the conditions of abnormality. The hon. Member has highlighted every facet of the problem that worries us. Surely, it would be more reasonable to have the odd malformed child than take the risk of killing a normal foetus.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Will the hon. Member recognise that the whole burden of the case put by the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) was not the risk of birth of a malformed child, but damage to the health of the mother due to fear of the risk of a malformed child? That is quite different from the defence of the Clause which has customarily been advanced by those who support it.

Sir M. Galpern: I was coming to that. The case which the hon. Member puts, and which was argued by the hon. Member for Cheadle, is covered by the Bill. There is no need for the Amendment. As paragraph (a,i) states
that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life or of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman.
the case is already covered.
The hon. Member presented only one case, although it was a harrowing story, and this problem is already dealt with in the Bill. Therefore, when an embryo might be healthy or malformed, it is argued that we should take the risk of killing a healthy child. It is unfair for the hon. Member or any doctor to say that a healthy child should face the possibility of being killed through a faulty diagnosis, and I would rather the risk were the other way.
8.15 a.m.
Many people support termination of pregnancy in the interests of the mother's physical and mental health, but strongly oppose killing a foetus because of the obvious difficulties. Who will determine the risk, for instance? This is not stated. What will be the degree of malformation? What is "seriously" malformed? The hon. Member admitted that diagnosis, particularly of mental malformation, is

difficult, and this must be true of diagnosing "serious" malformation. How will interpretation vary between different medical practitioners? There are some cases of not very serious malformation.
When I was Lord Provost of Glasgow I had the privilege to give occasional parties for physically and mentally handicapped children, which were some of the happiest and most satisfying days of my tenure of office. About 400 or 500 parents attended, also, some with more than one child, and when asked, they immediately refuted any idea that they were under any strain because their children were abnormal. I saw love and affection and devotion between a mother and her malformed child, which was sometimes deeper even than that between a mother and her normal child—

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: I was also in Glasgow at the time that the hon. Gentleman was Lord Provost. Does he remember the example of one of our colleagues who, although greatly physically handicapped, gave great service to the city and inspiration in the same way as the children who inspired the hon. Member?

Sir M. Galpern: I know of many such cases. My most lasting memory is of the complete devotion between mother and child. Many hon. Members have witnessed this devotion, so how can they reasonably argue that we should take a gamble—this is what it would be—to enable a medical practitioner to take the life of a similarly disabled child? There is a mental strain and stress when the medical practitioner has to acquaint the mother that she may give birth to a malformed child, but in many cases the mother has an entirely different outlook once the child is born from that when she approaches the termination of her pregnancy.
I regret that we have not the opportunity to delete this subsection. The hon. Member for Cheadle said that a failure to legalise a situation which doctors already operate would bring them into legal difficulty. But they have been able to circumvent the law—let them continue to do so without our giving them a legal protection which does not appear necessary, and certainly without our giving them a blanket defence to


anything done under the subsection. On his own admission, what needs to be done is being done at present. If, as a result of widening the practice, it led to the killing of a healthy child, then we ought not to be parties to such a provision.
We are asking that the community should accept responsibility for these physically and mentally handicapped children. Among the many offices which I hold is that of chairman to a home in Glasgow for mentally and physically handicapped. It is most pleasant to go there and to contribute a little sympathy and help, although at times the parents do not welcome it. We help as far as we can to provide the parents with relief in holidays, taking the children in for short periods while the parents have a break. It is an inspiration and challenge to us all that we have these mentally and physically handicapped, and the community ought to accept the challenge.
The medical profession have done remarkable work in minimising the deficiency of the mentally or physically handicapped. Long should that continue. I hope that we shall modify the subsection to ensure the greatest degree of care before we empower the medical practitioners to engage in the termination of any embryo which might ultimately be malformed.

Sir Knox Cunningham: On a point of order. Are we discussing Amendments Nos. 21 and 26.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is so.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I was a little shaken by the speech of the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley). As, I imagine, have many hon. Members, I have been following the course of the debate as it proceeded in Committee. One had referred over and over again to this Clause as the eugenics Clause. I had, perhaps erroneously, assumed that it was a Clause which was intended primarily to enable the prevention, where the mother so wished, of the birth of a child whose life, if it lived, was likely to be so severely handicapped that it would not be worth living. I assumed that it was with this in mind that the sponsors of the Bill were proposing its inclusion.
This was not the argument on which the hon. Member for Cheadle rested his

case for the rejection of the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas). As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern) rightly pointed out, the case adduced by the hon. Member for Cheadle would be entirely covered.

Dr. Winstanley: I was not advancing a case. I was endeavouring to answer some points contained in the case which the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) had advanced.

Mr. Jenkin: This is totally irrelevant to this argument. The hon. Member for Shettleston pointed out that if that argument was the basis for the inclusion of the Clause, then the point is adequately covered by an earlier provision.
I say that the argument is irrelevant because if what is aimed at is the prevention of fear and apprehension, leading to illness on the part of the mother, then the medical degree of probability is far less relevant. Clearly, the mere fact that she has had, say, rubella some time in the first 16 weeks of pregnancy may be enough to set up a degree of anxiety which would give rise to all the unhappy consequences which were graphically described. Because of the likelihood of this being allayed by the medical advisers on the ground that it is a low degree of probability, is not very great.
If that is the argument, then I cannot see why the Clause is in the Bill. I have not been satisfied by the remarks of the hon. Member for Cheadle—or by what he did not say—about what I believe is still, in many hon. Members' minds, the prime purpose of the Clause; the prevention of malformed and severely handicapped births.
The question of the degree of likelihood is obviously a highly technical medical matter. Indeed, it is on this aspect of the Bill, perhaps more than any other, that I have had the greatest sympathy with those who have argued that this whole matter requires thorough medical investigation before the House should be asked to legislate. These factors will weigh heavily with a number of hon. Members when they consider whether or not they can support the Measure on Third Reading.
When considering the Amendment, one must consider how far, in the present state of medical knowledge, it is possible to say with any degree of certainty—absolute, probable or likely—that a malformed child is likely to be born. I have looked carefully into the question of the likelihood of malformation. There seems to be some relationship between, for example, the thalidomide syndrome; not so much in that the drug caused the malformation but that it prevented the premature ejection of the child that was malformed, and resulted in the birth of a child which would not otherwise have been born.
One is, therefore, dealing with extremely complicated medical matters on which uncertainties must still, to a substantial degree, prevail. Some doctors, faced with this Clause, would be only too ready to say in good faith, "There is a risk, and we are prepared to say that we feel this to be a serious risk. We must, therefore, prevent the birth of the child by artificially terminating the pregnancy".
One is opening a door, the opening of which could have very dangerous consequences. I will require to be satisfied more than I have been so far that medical knowledge has reached such a degree of sophistication that the Clause could be operated in the terms which I believe that the sponsors of the Bill would like to think that it operated without the severe risk of a number of perfectly sound and healthy children being destroyed in the early stages of pregnancy. That is the main point, and it was argued, if I may say so, extremely well by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas). I must tell the hon. Member for Cheadle and his hon. Friend, that I am quite unsatisfied by any answer we have had so far.

8.30 a.m.

Mr. K. Robinson: I have sought the best advice I can about these Amendments, and in a very few sentences I should like to communicate that advice to the House.
I think that you will agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that Amendment No. 26 is consequential on Amendment No. 21, since it refers to the word "probability" which is not in the Bill at the moment. Therefore, if No. 21 is rejected,

No. 26 will fall. I am informed that if we were to accept the first three Amendments it is extremely doubtful whether, in the present state of medical knowledge, a doctor could ever properly carry out an abortion under paragraph (b). It therefore follows that if the House wishes paragraph (b) to be effective, as I do in my personal capacity, the only advice I can give is that it should reject all three Amendments.

Mr. Madden: Before the Minister sits down, may I point out that he did not tell us about the word "probability"? He must have some advice on that. In my profession, I have to deal with statistics. We talk of probabilities as 0·1, meaning that there is one chance in ten. Is it really thought that "probability" means over 50 per cent.? If hon. Members think that, they are living in a world of laymen and I do not think the courts would uphold them.

Mr. Robinson: I am speaking of the world of lawyers, and I am told that the legal interpretation is that it is over 50 per cent.

Mrs. Knight: The House listened to the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) with exceptional care for two reasons. The first is that he himself claimed at the outset to be the, as it were, official spokesman of this Clause in the absence of the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) —

Mr. David Steel: I must say that I take offence at that comment when I left the Chamber for five minutes after I have been sitting here continuously—without leaving even for a few seconds—from ten o'clock last night until eight o'clock this morning.

Mrs. Knight: It was right that complaint should have been made by an hon. Member, who made it simply because there was no one here to reply to his remarks.
I make a valid point by saying that one of our reasons for listening with such care to the hon. Member for Cheadle was that he himself said at the outset that this was his position in this debate. The other reason is that we all recognise that he has medical knowledge which most of us do not have, and we are always extremely


anxious to have a good and solid knowledge of facts that he knows better than we do.
But, bearing in mind that point, it was a matter of great disappointment to me that the hon. Gentleman seemed to mislead the House, I am sure quite unintentionally, on four clearly separate counts. The first one was when he appeared to say that no one need worry, because the doctors will do all they can to make sure that a woman continues with her pregnancy. In fact, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) made the point—and it is very important that other hon. Members recognise it to be so—that, because the Clause is worded as it is, it cannot be said to be valid that doctors will do their utmost to see that a woman continues with her pregnancy. That is not a point which the hon. Member for Cheadle can make with validity.
Second, he described very movingly the case of a child born to a woman who contracted German measles at an important stage in her pregnancy, and he spoke about the birth of a very badly handicapped child. What he did not say was that this sort of case is extremely rare. He seemed to indicate that it was not at all unusual for it to happen if a woman had German measles at this stage. It may surprise him to know that one doctor who has been in practice for 40 years has written to me saying that he has never had a single case in all his experience of a woman who produced a handicapped child after contracting German measles in early pregnancy.
It is important for the House to realise that we must not be led astray by hard cases. It is well known that hard cases make bad law. We have asked repeatedly for some sort of firm knowledge about how certain it is that a mother will produce a handicapped child after contracting German measles. So far, we have asked in vain, because the suggestion about setting up a Royal Commission has not been accepted up till now.
The third way in which the hon. Gentleman misled the House was when he said that occasionally—and that was his word—a healthy child will be aborted. But is it not true that, if the Clause is accepted as it stands at the moment, far more

healthy children will be aborted than unhealthy ones? It is not true to say that occasionally one might be aborted who would be all right, when quite the reverse is the case.

Mr. Gurden: To be fair to the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley), I did not hear him deny that three to five normal healthy children would be destroyed.

Mrs. Knight: He took up that point later when he was challenged to deny that those figures were true. I am dealing with the point in his speech where he used words to the effect that occasionally a health child would be aborted if this Clause were accepted. It is not good enough to attempt to suggest that it will happen only occasionally. It will happen in the vast majority of cases.
The fourth way in which he misled the House was over the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern). Again, one had great sympathy for the woman who carried her child with an increasing burden of worry, doubt and anguish. But, as has been clearly pointed out, that woman could be aborted under another Clause of the Bill, and the hon. Member for Cheadle must not advance that argument in favour of the eugenic Clause.

Dr. Winstanley: The reason why I stressed this point was to answer a point which the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) made. He asked, why not wait until the child was born at term? I did not intend to give the impression that the only reason for the abortion of a malformed foetus is the mother's nervous condition. That is not so at all.

Mrs. Knight: What the hon. Member has said is very interesting, but it does not invalidate the point I am making in any way. He must recognise that. It is, of course, a very terrible thing to have a handicapped child. I dare say that all of us at some time have known mothers who have cared for handicapped children. That we oppose this Clause does not mean that we have no sympathy for a woman with a handicapped child; quite the reverse. When I knew far less about this subject than I know now, I supported


the idea that if a woman would have a handicapped child she should be allowed to be aborted. I had vividly in mind the problem of thalidomide babies, and I would have supported that idea until I knew more about it.
I will read from what was said by the gynaecologist from whom I have already quoted. What he said is very relevant to this question. Speaking of the eugenic provision, he said:
This has not been comprehensively opposed by the gynaecologists as a group though some have, along with the leading clergy, singled it out as the most offensive section of the Bill. The main objection to it is that occultly it introduces the principle of euthanasia albeit 'antenatal euthanasia'. If euthanasia is to be introduced, many feel it is desirable to face the issue squarely rather than allow it to creep in by the back door.
It is no good saying to the country that if it is thought that a woman may have a handicapped child it can be got rid of on the off-chance. It would be far more honest and humane to wait and see if the child is handicapped and then, if it is thought that it ought not to live, to get rid of it. How is it right to get rid of a child one cannot see and who has not been born, yet wrong to get rid of a child one can see, when the healthy child can be protected? How is it that many hon. Members do not seem to be concerned about the number of healthy children who would be aborted under the provisions of this Clause? This concerns me very much indeed. I think it right that other hon. Members should also concern themselves about it.
The gynaecologist also said:
Many feel that in this connection the proper thing is to make provision that abortion may be done if there is danger to the mother's mental health from worry about a pregnancy with a high risk of foetal malformation".
That is entirely different from the Clause as it stands. Even if we could be absolutely certain that the child would be handicapped, is it right to say that we do not want handicapped children and cannot care for them? Surely it is most important to say in a country which has any pretensions to Christianity, "We will care for our weak and malformed and those who are not so fortunate as we", not get rid of them. Almost all the handicapped children I have seen recognise the good things of life and enjoy

living. Although they cannot live as we do, they derive from life many great joys. Who has not known blind people who have enormous joy and pleasure from music, or handicapped people who even have paraplegic sports?
8.45 a.m.
Some of the handicaps suffered by those which the Clause seeks to get rid of are very minor. Some are only a matter of webbed feet or webbed fingers. These would be classed as handicaps. Surely nothing could be more simple than to get over such a minor handicap.

Sir D. Glover: Is it really the case that someone with webbed feet is handicapped? That would mean that I should have been aborted.

Mrs. Knight: I am sure that all hon. Members, with few exceptions, are delighted that my hon. Friend's slight disability was satisfactorily arranged so as to enable him to be with us.

Mr. Frederic Harris: If that tragedy had occurred, it would have shortened tonight's debates.

Mrs. Knight: If I touched upon that, I might be ruled out of order.
When we talk about handicapped children in a blanket way, we cover some very minor handicaps. All those suffering from major handicaps—blindness, deafness, spasticity—have a right to live. There have been great advances in the care and treatment of these children. I spent a long time as chairman of a school for educationally subnormal children. They would certainly be classified as handicapped. Yet they had great joy in living. It would have been very immoral to have denied them the right to live just because they are not as we are.
I want to mention parents. Many who support this proposal know people who have borne the burden of a handicapped child throughout all its life. Some handicapped children live to middle age and beyond. Because people have seen the weight of this burden on parents, they think that the Clause is a very humane one and that they should support it. Surely we should not get rid of the child. We should say, "Let us have more homes and better facilities and give the parents a rest in caring for them or every scrap of help we can,


thus sharing the burden". Society is more and more recognising its responsibilities and bearing them.
Life is precious to me, as it is to all hon. Members. I beg hon. Members to think again before they deny life to those who have already been given a handicap, either physical or mental. To deny them life as well would be harsh. This part of the Bill seeks to devalue life in a way which, if we sanctioned it, we could well be extremely sorry for afterwards.

Mr. English: The object of Amendments Nos. 21 and 26 is to introduce into the Bill a greater precision of definition than exists in it now. Paragraph (b), to which these Amendments and others relate, says, for some reason, "substantial risk". I do not quite know why the prefix "substantial" is in paragraph (b) but not in paragraph (a), where it is merely an unqualified risk. Presumably a substantial risk means a higher degree of statistical probability than merely an unqualified risk. Presumably, therefore, whatever the meaning of these phrases, whatever the meaning as interpreted by each doctor—because that is what it boils down to—if he can interpret "risk" to mean a 10 per cent. statistical probability, then "substantial risk" must be something higher, say 20 per cent.
I do not know why it was not feasible for the promoters of the Bill to put in a specific percentage, because current medical practice often says that certain events have a statistical probability of occurring. This is quite common. I do not know why it was not possible to put a specific figure in the Bill. It may be that the intention was to make people believe that what was meant here was a probability of 50 per cent., but it seems to me that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has totally demolished this belief, if any such belief ever existed.
There is in the Bill a complete vagueness, and presumably in the end the courts will have to interpret what is a substantial risk. Meanwhile each individual doctor will have to determine it for himself, and run the risk of being wrong. It would have been simple to redraft the Bill to replace "substantial risk" by some other words, possibly other than those in the Amendments. The object of Amendments Nos. 20 and 23 is to import a

100 per cent. probability. I agree with the promoters of the Bill that this is going too far. There are few things in life of which we can be certain, and certainly nothing in biology, human or otherwise.
My suggestion in Amendment No. 21 is to import a 50 per cent. probability, but the Minister of Health has said that a 50 per cent. probability is beyond the reach of medical science at this time. If this is so, would it not have been possible for the promoters of the Bill—and I hope they may be able to do this in another place—to put in a specific figure which is within the reach of medical science?

Mrs. Lena Jeger: Has not my hon. Friend the understanding to realise that whatever percentage is put into a Bill of this kind, to the one mother in 1,000 who is the mother of a severely handicapped child, she is 100 per cent. the mother of a severely handicapped child, and to talk in these percentage terms is inhumane, in a way which I am sure my hon. Friend does not intend.

Mr. English: With respect to the hon. Lady, I would entirely agree with every word she said if the Bill was perfectly open and honest and said that paragraph (b) was merely an excuse. What ought to be the case on that basis—and I understand the emotional force behind this—is simply to make abortion on any ground legal at the request of the mother. Perhaps this is what ought to be the case. It is an arguable viewpoint. I accept that the hon. Lady has a logical coherent viewpoint.
What I am criticising is that this paragraph does not represent that viewpoint. It imports some degree of statistical probability, but it does not say what it imports, except that it is more than in paragraph (a), and it seems to me it leaves the whole issue to the individual doctor to determine at his peril. This is what is wrong with the whole of the paragraph. The hon. Lady's suggestion would be logically coherent, and I accept that it would be.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: As the parent of a mentally handicapped child, I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and not with the hon. Lady.

Mr. English: It is not for me to comment on that.
Although Amendment No. 26 is linked by the word "probability" with the other Amendments, it imports into the Bill a degree of definition, or at any rate that is its intention, because the Bill, whether it says "substantial risk", or "certainty", or "probability", in every case this is related to whether the child would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.
Here again, there is no attempt to define what is meant by seriously handicapped. As we have seen in the debate, it is possible for any two people to have totally different views on what that term means. There is no guidance in the Bill to the medical profession, and no guidance to the courts, which may have to interpret and adjudge the actions of doctors.

Mr. Braine: With respect, it is not correct that there has been no guidance from the medical profession. There are two basic documents on the subject, which have been available to the Government and to hon. and right hon. Members. There is a report by the B.M.A. Special Committee and the Council of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, which lays down exactly what is meant by the term "seriously handicapped." I could go on to explain it, if I had time, but the "butcher" is at work.

Mr. English: With respect, although there are suggestions that our practice should be altered, the only things the courts in England will interpret at present are the meaures which we in Parliament pass. They will not take the views of a particular Royal College. Perhaps they should. There are suggestions that they should take into account documents of that kind. They would in a Roman law system, but they do not in England. This is an essential point. All the courts have for their guidance are, in the strictest sense, the words "seriously handicapped."
In the end, the individual doctor or the two doctors determining the issue—not the medical profession as a whole—must define what they believe "seriously handicapped" means. They must do that having in their minds a matter which the medical profession often hates, that is, what a court may decide it means, which may not be what the medical profession

thinks it means. We can all think of occasions when the courts have given a statute a meaning in medical terms to which the medical profession has strongly objected.
The object of Amendment No. 26 was to put into the Bill some form of definition. It may or may not be the right one. I would not suggest that it is necessarily the only definition or the perfect definition—far from it—but there ought to be in the Bill words defining what Parliament means by "seriously handicapped." My suggestion in the Amendment is, that in that context, what is meant is that the child
would be so mentally subnormal as to be incapable of being educated by a local education authority.
That is the case of mental abnormality, and I proposed that form of words because they import a fairly well understood set of criteria. There are such children. Every local education authority and local health authority has to deal with them, and there are fairly well understood criteria for identifying such a child.
In the case of physical abnormality, my suggestion is that the child would be
incapable of existence otherwise than in a hospital or similar institution".
I admit that the wording may not be perfect, but it seems to me that the object of setting a standard for what "seriously handicapped" means should be considered by the House. We ought not to leave it completely vague, open and in the air.
What is a serious physical handicap? I knew the blind mayor of the borough on the council of which I used to sit, and he said that the only serious handicap for him would be to be deaf. He had been for half his life sighted and then he became blind. He said that, for the things he wanted to do, his blindness did not cause him undue difficulty—he was a remarkably able man—but what would have caused him to be completely cut off from human society was deafness.
Does that mean that deafness is a serious handicap and blindness is not? It may be that the medical profession cannot determine whether a child will be born with the one defect or the other, but, if it could, would that mean that the one was a serious handicap and the other


was not? I shall not go on to elaborate cases of that kind.
We ought, as a Parliament, to consider precisely what we mean by these words. If we decide that we cannot determine what we mean by them, then, I think, my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Lena Jeger) will have a point. If that is what Parliament wants, and we are going to legalise any sort of abortion anywhere, we had better say so.

Mrs. Lena Jeger: My hon. Friend must not misrepresent me. I said nothing of the kind.

Mr. English: My hon. Friend did say "one in a thousand", and one in a thousand is so low a statistical probability as to mean virtually every possibility. However, I am not trying to misrepresent my hon. Friend.

Mrs. Lena Jeger: I am sure that my hon. Friend is not.

9.0 a.m.

Mr. English: I am saying that the Bill leaves the actual meaning completely vague and open. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has demolished any argument that it means a degree of risk which is one for one, because he said that that can never be determined by the medical profession, and I take his word. He did not say what degree can be determined by the medical profession, but clearly it is much less than that.
The only clear Bill would be one saying, "We legalise abortion", or one leaving out the words "substantial risk" on the grounds that medical science simply cannot determine the risk. As it is now worded, the Bill undoubtedly needs tidying up.

Mr. Peter Mahon: Hon. Members will agree that we have heard splendid and eloquent speeches on the Clause, which I consider to be the most important in the Bill. On the basis of the enlightening speeches that we have heard in the past hour or so, Parliament would be well-advised to accept what was said by the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) and agree to the Amendment.
I think that the words of the subparagraph deserve repetition. It says:

that there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.
The hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) gave a very sincere, wise and honest exposition of the facts as they appeared to him. But the deficiencies were too evident. Without being unduly critical, I should say that despite his splendid attempt to allay hon. Members' fears his exposition was inadequate, if not apologetic.
We are no longer considering a threat to the life or health of the mother, but are considering taking into our own hands the decision whether a child shall live, whether, in the child's interests, we should terminate its life before it has began. That sounds a contradiction in terms, but I have used that phrase particularly because I think that it is accurate.
Can any right hon. or hon. Member define or assess what prospects there are for any living being? I believe with all the sincerity of which I am capable that many human beings have fulfilled their rôle in the pattern of existence without having been too richly endowed physically or mentally. Without being facetious, I should say that one has only to look around the House to see the strength of that argument.
In the alleged interests of the child, the Bill would hand over to someone the right to decide its entire existence. The only means of decision is an estimation of statistical risk. The Clause intends to approve abortion, the termination of life itself, on an estimation. The highest probability that one can arrive at as to whether a baby can be deformed is one in four. Therefore, if an abortion is allowed in this situation, three times out of every four a perfectly normal and unmained life will be destroyed.
The fearsome question—I put it to the House in all its gravity—is: are four potential lives to go into the incinerator lest one child should be deformed? Is the House prepared to accept that principle? If it is, the supporters of the Bill would do better to declare themselves in favour of putting to death the malformed newly born. Hon. Members quail at that, and all honour and glory to them, but that is the logical alternative to


what they are seeking to do, and the consequences would be far less devastating.
If the law is to take to itself the power to assess the effect of the existence and life of the child—and the Clause confirms nothing else—I ask with the greatest possible concern: how far flung are the floodgates? Physically handicapped children, as we all know from our own experience—we must be perfectly honest about this; we have all had experience which has enabled us to gain very wonderful and lasting impressions—can develop the most delightful personalities and be a great joy and consolation to their parents. The constant preoccupation and research to save life and make possible more healthy children is one of the glories of the medical profession.
The Bill presents the easy way out, and so much more that is possible will never be attempted. It is a known fact that very often the demands made upon parents by children who need extra care and help can lead to a development in maturity and responsibility in parents who would otherwise remain mediocre. This fact was stressed—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I think that we all agree with what he is saying, but he must come to the Amendment, which is a question of substituting one word for another.

Mr. Mahon: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am speaking to Amendment 20. I have stated expressly that I agree with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Chelmsford. I agree profoundly that the change should be made in the Clause. I am trying in the best way I can, the most intelligent, honest and sincere way I can, to give reasons why this should be done.
Your intervention, Mr. Speaker, came at the wrong moment for me. I want to refer to the fact that the position of these deformed and mentally retarded children was mentioned in Committee. Surely I must be in order. I have read the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee proceedings—I have taken a very keen interest in the Bill since its inception—and I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that full reference was made to this aspect in a speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) during the Committee stage.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Speaker is very patient with the hon. Member. We are discussing an Amendment, and he must come back now to the Amendment. I have already allowed him to range widely.

Mr. Mahon: Well, if one is to express the need for an Amendment one has to give reasons why he is expressing the need for the Amendment. That is precisely what I am attempting to do. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
The whole world mourned for the children of Aberfan who met death so suddenly in their classrooms. Above all else in that grief-stricken mining village what is being missed today are the smiles, the tears, the play and the laughter of those little ones. Mr. Speaker, you have had tremendous experience in dealing with little ones yourself throughout a long period of your own lifetime, and you know that what hon. Members have been saying so eloquently for the last hour or so is all too true. Nature has its own pruning knife. Most certainly, day by day, in the experience of each and every one of us, we learn of the frightful catastrophes and accidents involving a sad toll of human life.
In the light of that knowledge, this paragraph in the Bill points to the sin of despair. We are all of us rational beings, with normal human hearts; we have our joys and we have our sorrows. Posterity will not only mourn but recoil in horror at the thought of countless thousands of unborn children being suddenly deprived of life even after months in their mothers' wombs.
I believe that the direct killing of the unborn child is an act deeply repugnant to humanity and diametrically opposed to the whole concept of medicine and law. It is a slander on our people to say that they are asking for this sort of legislation. They never have.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must come to the Amendment. We are not discussing the abortion Bill.

Mr. Mahon: I trust that the House of Commons at a quarter past nine this morning after 11 hours' discussion of this Bill will agree to the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Chelmsford. I trust, also, that neither this part nor other parts of the Bill will appear


on the Statute Book because I believe that this would be an act which would be contrary to every decent principle. Above all else, if there is to be legislation with regard to the unborn child—and this is what the Amendment deals with precisely: legislation with regard to the unborn child, the unborn, the mentally defective and the malformed child—let us ensure that it starts off from the initial premise of the child's right to life. Whatever the plight of the mother we shall neglect at our peril the rights of the tiny, unpersonalised being within the womb.
It is proposed to allow abortion when there is "substantial risk" that the child would be born suffering from physical or mental abnormality which would prove to be a serious handicap to it during its existence. But how is one to know that the child will be born like that? Certainly not by an examination of the foetus. Can anyone diagnose that a child will be born blind or deaf? It can only be a guess in particular cases. The moral way of solving these great difficulties is not by killing but by bettering social conditions. Rooted objections to this Bill by so many hon. Members—

9.15 a.m.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot continue to flout the Chair. This part of his speech would be all right on Third Reading, but not on this Amendment.

Mr. Mahon: You have been very kind to me, Mr. Speaker, and I am indebted to you. I will conclude now by agreeing with the view that these Amendments should be accepted.

Mr. Maddan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to draw your attention to the fact that the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) and the Patronage Secretary have been in conversation, which makes me apprehend that the Closure is about to be moved, whereas your predecessor in the Chair assured my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) the right of reply, since he had allowed further Amendments to be debated with those originally selected.

Mr. Speaker: The Closure has not yet been moved. I had something of the

same thought in my mind as the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Maddan). If my predecessor in the Chair gave that assurance, I obviously must honour it. Mr. St. John-Stevas.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Mr. St. John-Stevas rose—

Mr. Braine: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not wish to delay the House, but I would point out that no contrary view has been expressed to the many views put during this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford will be replying to views that meet with his entire approval.

Mr. Speaker: I have been asked to give the hon. Member for Chelmsford an opportunity to reply in response to an undertaking given by my predecessor in the Chair. It is for the hon. Member to decline it if he wishes to.

Mr. Percival: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are we to infer that you are planning in advance that the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) will be the last before the Closure is moved? I and other hon. Members have been bobbing up and down like yo-yo's throughout the night, only to be defeated when at last we might have had the opportunity to say something on a matter of great public interest by the Closure being moved—a Motion we have been able to foresee from the movements going on in the House.
Are we to infer from what you have said that you are merely honouring the undertaking given by your predecessor in the Chair to allow my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford to reply and indicating in advance that you will accept the Closure?

Mr. Speaker: I am aware of all hon. Members who, to quote the hon. and learned Gentleman, have been bobbing up and down like yo-yo's during the night. I happen to have been in the Chair for quite a time. All I am doing at the moment is giving the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) the right to reply which was promised to him. What happens beyond that we must wait and see.

Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have been here all night but I have not stood


up to speak because I wanted to reserve my opportunity to speak on this Amendment. With great respect, it seems to me that the Closure has been moved with regularity.

Mr. Speaker: The question of the Closure is a matter for the judgment of the Chair. It cannot be challenged in this way as a point of order. If the hon Lady wishes to challenge it she has her method by putting a Motion on the Order Paper.

Sir D. Glover: On a point of order. The reason that your Deputy gave my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford the promise that he would be allowed to reply to the debate was that he extended the width of the debate by making the debate on Amendments Nos. 20, 23, 21 and 26 one debate, whereas up to that moment it had been expected that we should have two separate debates. I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will take that into account when considering your Ruling.

Mr. Speaker: The Chair takes everything into account when acting as the Chair.

Mr. Christopher Price: Further to that point of order. I and several other hon. Members were in the house when your predecessor in the Chair pronounced on the right of reply of the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) to this debate on these four Amendments. If I remember rightly, that pronouncement was made in extremely non-committal terms. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not going into an inquest on what my predecessor in the Chair undertook. If he gave an undertaking it is being honoured.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: On a point of order. Without wishing to question anything that you have said, Mr. Speaker, may I ask your guidance? You announced your intention to call my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), to whom you have accorded a right of reply. We are deeply appreciative of this, but does the calling of an hon. Member with a right of reply denote that the debate will be at an end after his speech?

Mr. Speaker: The point has already been put to me and I have answered it. [Interruption.] Order. We have had a long evening, with many useful

debates, but I hope that we shall not spend time on frivolous points of order.

Mr. Temple: Mr. Speaker, I was in the House when you originally ruled that Amendment Nos. 20 and 23 would be taken together and that there would be a separate debate. I was further in the House when your deputy was in the Chair and I was the first to raise a point of order with him regarding the coupling of Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 together which incorporated the debate on Amendment No. 26. Your deputy in the Chair said that my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) would have a right of reply. To that, I did raise a point of order. I said that I did not agree that it would be right for him to have a right of reply; he should have a right of speaking to Amendment No. 26 to which he had his name. When the House is on the Report stage of a Bill a Member has the right of speaking a second time only if he is the Member in charge of an Amendment.
I suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford has a right of speaking to Amendment 26 as up till now he has been precluded from speaking to it. It is, in fact, coupled with Amendment No. 21, and the hon. Member for Cheadle were speaking purely to Amendments Nos. 20 and 23 which were at that time coupled together. In other words, the two principal speeches in favour of these Amendments were not directed to Amendment No. 26.
I suggest, therefore, that my hon. Friend has the right of making two further speeches and that the words "right of reply" have nothing to do with that.

Mr. Speaker: The point of order which the hon. and learned Gentleman has submitted is entirely invalid. The House accepted the grouping of two Amendments after it had refused to accept the grouping of them when I was in the Chair. My predcessor has undertaken to give the hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) an opportunity to reply, which is not a right that the hon. Gentleman has automatically to each of the grouped Amendments.
The rule of the House, as all hon. Members know, is:
Where a bill has been committed to a standing committee, or has been so committed


in respect of any provision, at the report stage of the bill or provision, the rule against speaking more than once does not apply to the Member in charge of the bill, or to the mover of any Amendment or New Clause in respect of that Amendment or Clause.
The hon. Gentleman may reply to the combined Amendments which we have been discussing but he has no right of reply to the two of them. Mr. St. John-Stevas.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am deeply sensible of your kindness, Mr. Speaker, and your punctiliousness in honouring the pledge given by your predecessor. If it will facilitate matters I will be happy to defer my right of reply until other Members have spoken.

Mr. Speaker: Order. When an hon. Member replies to a debate on an Amendment, the fact that he has replied does not end it. It may be ended, but that is not automatic.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is not my intention or my desire to delay the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "No?"] I would not mind delaying the Government, but I do not wish to delay the House. I preface my remarks by welcoming the Leader of the House and thanking him for the belated arrangements which he has made for us.
I wish to reply briefly to the debate. All the Amendments which have been considered in this group have been concerned with the degree of risk which can be held to justify abortion, if once it is accepted that there are such eugenic circumstances that an abortion can be justified. I have indicated that there are some circumstances in which certainly I consider an abortion is justified on the grounds of necessity. I have equally made it clear that I would not include in those grounds eugenic circumstances alone. My general attitude to this question is that a deformity should be cared for rather than blotted out. But if we are going to have a Clause such as this in the Bill, then it is essential that that Clause should be as tightly drawn as possible.
On Amendments Nos. 20 and 23 we have had a fairly full discussion in which I have made my own views plain, and I do not wish to burden the House with a repetition of those views. All I would say is that, although I am extremely

grateful for the very comprehensive and learned reply delivered by the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley), I do not think he answered my argument. The only point in his dissertation which I found impressive was the point that a mother who has born a deformed child suffers such anxiety that she at all costs wishes to avoid another pregnancy, while a mother who has had an abortion on the ground of deformity wishes as soon afterwards as possible to have another pregnancy. If what the hon. Member for Cheadle says is true, that is an argument against the Bill.

9.30 a.m.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: In support of his Amendment, the hon. Member has made the point that it is virtually impossible to say for sure whether a child will be born malformed. I understood that to be the principal argument. If the hon. Member agrees with that, can he explain the purpose of using the word "certainty" in the Clause?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Yes, I can. I had not intended to revert to that point, because I thought that I had adequately dealt with it. My point in including "certainty" is precisely that it is extremely difficult to predict whether a child will be born deformed. Therefore, the inclusion of "certainty" in the Bill at this stage, during the period of unpredictability of possible deformity, would have the effect of excluding abortions on the ground of deformity and, therefore, would exclude the danger of healthy children being disposed of to save an unhealthy or a potentially unhealthy child.
The medical situation might change, however. Here, I am entirely in the hands of the hon. Member for Cheadle, who indicated that research was advancing at a great pace and that it should soon become easily predictable whether a child was liable to be deformed. In that situation, by having "certainty" in the Clause, it would be possible for medical science to operate effectively under the Bill without incurring the risk of destroying healthy children. I hope that I have answered the point.
Having been distracted, I return to Amendments Nos. 21 and 26. The latter would substitute "probability" for "substantial risk" in paragraph (b)


instead of substituting "certainty", as my Amendment would do. I think that "probability" is better than "substantial risk" because "risk" is vague and "substantial" has nothing very concrete to it. Therefore, "probability" is a better word because a definable meaning can be attached to it. I take it to mean "more likely than not." [Interruption.] That would be an improvement—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is difficult for an hon. Member to speak against a background of conversation.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker.
It is possible to interpret the phrase "more likely than not" as meaning that an abortion could be carried out only if the chances of the child being born seriously handicapped were more than 50 per cent. That would be a reasonable interpretation of "probability". That would tighten the Clause. Therefore, while it is not as desirable as "certainty", it would be more desirable than the present wording.
I cannot add to the eloquence with which the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) put forward his argument for Amendment 26. Again, however, the basic argument for the hon. Member's Amendment is that it would give a definable test something which is verifiable and concrete, that the degree of handicap should be that the child is so mentally abnormal as to spend all its life in a hospital. This should be adopted, suitably amended, even if Amendment No. 21 is not accepted—

Division No. 415.]
AYES
[9.38 a.m.


Albu, Austen
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Dunn, James A.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)


Allen, Schoefield
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)


Archer, Peter
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Armstrong, Ernest
Cant, R. B.
Ellis, John


Astor, John
Carlisle, Mark
Emery, Peter


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Carter-Jones, Lewie
Ensor, David


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Coe, Denie
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)


Bagier, Cordon A. T.
Cooke, Robert
Faulds, Andrew


Barnes, Michael
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Beaney, Alan
Crawshaw, Richard
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)


Bessell, Peter
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Bidwell, Sydney
Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)


Body, Richard
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)


Booth, Albert
Delargy, Hugh
Forrester, John


Bossom, Sir Clive
Dell, Edmund
Foster, Sir John.


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Fowler, Gerry


Boyden, James
Dickens, James
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Dlgby, Simon Wingfield
Freeson, Reginald


Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Dobson, Ray
Galpern, Sir Myer

Sir Stephen McAdden: If the Amendment of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) were accepted, would that not permit the advancement of medical science to narrow the area within which abortions can take place, so as to keep pace with the changes in medical science which make these difficulties curable?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am glad that my earlier arguments apply also to the hon. Member's argument.
Is it in the unborn child's interests to be killed because of a statistical risk of deformity? This is a dramatic decision, arousing a dramatic debate. The doctor speaks, the mother speaks, and others can raise their voices. The only one who cannot speak is the one most intimately concerned—the unborn child. It is a tradition of English common law and statute law to intervene precisely because it cannot speak for itself, and it is important to discharge this rule in any new Statute. It is therefore important that the Clause should be as strictly defined as possible; that is the purpose of the Amendments.

Several hon. Members: Several hon. Members rose—

Hon. Members: Up, Charlie!

Mr. C. Pannell: Mr. C. Pannell rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 187, Noes 64.

Gardner, Tony
Lestor, Miss Joan
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Garrett, W. E.
Lipton. Marcus
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Loughlin, Charles
Robinson, Rt. Hn, Kenneth (St. P'c'as)


Goodhart, Philip
Luard, Evan
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Lubbock, Eric
Roebuck, Roy


Gourlay, Harry
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
MoBride, Neil
Ryan John


Gretham Cooke, R.
McCann, John
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Grey, Charles (Durham)
MacColl, James
Shore, Peter (stepney)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
MacDermot, Niall
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward(N'ctle-u-Tyne)


Hamling, William
McGuire, Michael
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Harper, Joseph
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mackie, John
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Hart, Mrs. Judith
McNamara, J. Kevin
Small, William


Haseldine, Norman
Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)
Smith, John


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Snow, Julian


Higgins, Terence L.
Mellish, Robert
Spriggs, Leslie


Hilton, W. S.
Millan, Bruce
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Hobden Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Molloy, William
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Hooley, Frank
Moonman, Eric
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Horner, John
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Swingler, Stephen


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Moyle, Roland
Taverne, Dick


Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Murray, Albert
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Neave, Airey
Tuck, Raphael


Howie, W.
Newens, Stan
Urwin, T. W.


Hoy, James
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
vickers, Dame Joan


Huckfield, L.
Norwood, Christopher
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
O'Malley, Brian
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Hunt, John
Oram, Albert E.
Wallace, George


Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Orme, Stanley
White, Mrs. Eirene


Janner, Sir Barnett
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Whitlock, William


Jeger, Mrs. Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras, S.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Wigg, Rt. Hn. George


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Park, Trevor
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Pavitt, Laurence
Winnick, David


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Pentland, Norman
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Woof, Robert


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Yates, Victor


Judd, Frank
Price, William (Rugby)



Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth Central)
Quennell, Miss J. M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Kerr Russell (Feltham)
Rees, Merlyn
Mr. Christopher Price and


Ledger Ron
Reynolds, G. W.
Sir George Sinclair.


Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Richard, Ivor





NOES


Aldritt, Walter
Hiley, Joseph
Oakes, Gordon


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Oswald, Thomas


Biffen, John
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Biggs-Davison, John
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Percival, Ian


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hunter, Adam
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Braine, Bernard
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Crowder, F. P.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Symonds, J. B.


Dempsey, James
Kitson, Timothy
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Doughty, Charles
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Taylor, Edward M.(Glasgow,Cathcart)


English, Michael
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Teeling, Sir William


Fletcher Cooke, Charles
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Temple, John M.


Foley, Maurice
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Tinn, James


Fortescue, Tim
Macdonald, A. H.
Ward, Dame Irene


Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Clover, Sir Douglas
Maddan, Martin
Worsley, Marcus


Grieve, Percy
Mahon, Peter (Preston, s.)
Wright, Esmond


Gurden, Harold
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)



Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Monro, Hector
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
More, Jasper
Sir Knox Cunningham and


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Mr. Grant-Ferris.


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Murton, Oscar

Question put accordingly, That 'substantial risk' stand part of the Bill:—

Division No. 416.]
AYES
[9.47 a.m.


Albu, Austen
Astor, John
Beaney, Alan


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Bell, Ronald


Allen, Scholefield
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Berry, Hn. Anthony


Archer, Peter
Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Bidwell, Sydney


Armstrong, Ernest
Barnett, Joel
Body, Richard

The House divided: Ayes 162, Noes 73.

Booth, Albert
Haseldine, Norman
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Bossom, Sir Clive
Higgins, Terence L.
Park, Trevor


Bottomley Rt. Hn. Arthur
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Boyden, James
Hootey, Frank
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Horner, John
Pavitt, Laurence


Brown,Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Doug as
Pentland, Norman


Brown, R. W. (Shorediteh &amp; F'bury)
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Perry, Ernest G. (Batters:a, S.)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Howie, W.
Price, William (Rugby)


Cant, R. B.
Huckfield, L.
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Carlisle, Mark
Hunt, John
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Reynolds, G. W.


Coe, Denis
Janner, Sir Barnett
Richard, Ivor


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jeger, Mrs. Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P c as. S.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Crawshaw, Richard
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Darting, Rt. Hn. George
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St.P'c'as)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Johnson, Carol (Lew sham, S.)
Roebuck, Roy


Dickens, James
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir EIWyn(W.Ham,S.)
Ryan, John


Dobson, Ray
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Judd, Frank
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Dunwoody Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Cenlral)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c't e-u-Tyne)


Edwards, Robert (Bis on)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Ellis, John
Ledger, Ron
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Ensor, David
Lestor, Miss Joan
Silverman, Julins (Aston)


Evans, Gwynlor (C'marthen)
Lipton, Marcus
Smith, John


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Loughlin, Charles
Spriggs, Leslie


Faulds, Andrew
Luard, Evan
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lubbock, Eric
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
MacDermot, Nlall
Swingler, Stephen


Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Taverne, Dick


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mackie, John
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Forrester, John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Urwin, T. W.


Foster, Sir John
Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, [...].)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Fowler, Gurry
Maxwell-Hys op, R. J.
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Millan, Bruce
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Freeson, Reginald
Molloy, William
Wallace, George


Gardner, Tony
Moonman, Eric
White, Mrs. Eirene


Garrett, W. E.
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Whitlock, William


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Moyle, Roland
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Goodhart, Philip
Murray, Albert
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Neave, Airey
Winnick, David


Gourlay, Harry
Newens, Stan
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Gresham Cooke, R.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Worsley, Marcus


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Norwood, Christopher
Yates, Victor


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Oram, Albert E.



Hamling, William
Orme, Stanley
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Mr. Christopher Price and




Sir George Sinclair.




NOES


Alldritt, Walter
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Murton, Oscar


Biffen, John
Hiley, Joseph
Oakes, Gordon


Biggs-Davison, John
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
O'Malley, Brian


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Oswald, Thomas


Cooke, Robert
Hunter, Adam
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Percival, Ian


Crowder, F. P.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Delargy, Hugh
Kitson, Timothy
Smalt, William


Dempsey, James
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Symonds, J. B.


Doughty, Charles
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Dunn, James A.
Lever, L, M. (Ardwick)
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Emery, Peter
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Teeling, Sir William


English, Michael
McBride, Neil
Temple, John M.


Foley, Maurice
MacColl, James
Tinn, James


Fortescue, Tim
Macdonald, A. H.
Ward, Dame Irene


Frassr,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
McGuire, Michael
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Galpern, Sir Myer
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Gilmour, Sir John (File, E.)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Maddan, Martin
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Gurden, Harold
Mahon, Peter (Preston, s.)
Wright, Esmond


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)



Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mellish, Robert
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Harper, Joseph
Monro, Hector
Sir Knox Cunningham and


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
More, Jasper
Mr. Grant-Ferris.


arvie Anderson, Miss
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

Mr. David Steel: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I beg to move,
That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be adjourned.
There are two good reasons for moving this Motion. The first is that we have sat through the night, and those of us who have are fairly tired and would wish Jo give this fresh consideration at another stage. Second, I understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has some business which he wishes to transact at 11 o'clock, and who are we to stand in the way of the tax gatherers.
I do not think that it would be profitable, in discussing whether to defer further consideration of the Bill, to dwell on the happenings of the past night. The House must itself judge what happened last night in due course. There are serious difficulties in advancing social legislation under the Private Member's Bill system, but the House cannot complain of that, since it has always been the practice, and certainly it was a factor which weighed with me in my choice of subject. Nor can we complain about the Government giving time for this Bill—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): Order. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can raise that on this Motion.

Mr. Steel: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was going to end by saying that we cannot complain about the Government affording time for a Bill of this kind if we accept that it has to be done under the Private Member's Bill procedure and that a lengthy Report stage is required. May I, therefore, move that we defer further consideration?

Mr. Hogg: In supporting the Motion, may I say that, not only has the House nothing to regret about the night's proceedings, but that it has been an extremely well-conducted debate on both sides.
I want to say to the Government, now that both the Leader of the House and the Home Secretary are here, that I do not need to repeat what I said to the Leader of the House at Question Time 10 days' ago. This has not been a good plan, and he should take note of it. It would have been quite easy to give Government time in other circumstances, and

the patience and good bearing of the House is not to be held as a reason for endorsing the decision of the right hon. Gentleman to subject us to this procedure and reduce the staff to a state of almost complete nervous exhaustion.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Mr. St. John-Stevas rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Question is—

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Are you calling upon me to speak, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not unless the hon. Gentleman insists. If I sense the feeling of the House, it seems to be that the House should reach an immediate decision—[Interruption.] Order. It is perfectly open to hon. Members to debate this Motion if they think it right, but I should have hoped, in view of the fact that the House has been sitting for 12 hours on this Bill and it is now proposed to adjourn, that most hon. Members would wish to reach a decision.

Several hon. Members: Several hon. Members rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. St. John-Stevas.

10.0 a.m.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: In reply—

Mr. Ronald Bell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may we know where we are at the moment? The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) caught your eye on a point of order. Are we now to assume that while addressing you on a point of order he moved a dilatory Motion?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes. The Motion before the House is, That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be adjourned. Mr. St. John-Stevas.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I would not dream of insisting on any right against the Chair, but I should like to make a request to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that my right to be heard is granted on this Motion. I assure you that I shall not keep the House long, but it might be thought, by some at least, that those of us who have sat here during the night and who wish to say a few words on this Motion to adjourn are not acting totally unreasonably in claiming that right.
I think there is a reasonable case for accepting the adjournment at this point. I think there was a very much more reasonable case for accepting it earlier when it was moved. We have had a very full debate on a number of extremely important Amendments. I think everyone would agree that the debate has been of an extremely high standard. Mention has been made of a filibuster, which of course is an abusive and emotional word, but before this debate is adjourned I think it would be fair to say that although, as Mr. Speaker earlier pointed out, one must not be unduly sensitive in this House—he said one must not be hypersensitive—one should be reasonably sensitive.
If the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) suggested one were in fact conducting a filibuster, I think one would be acting reasonably and not hypersensitively to react a little to that. There is another view as to the operation that has gone on through the night. I will put it very briefly. If the Government put on a controversial Bill at a most inconvenient hour to the vast majority of hon. Members, which is quite unprecedented for a Private Member's Bill, those opposed to the Bill on grounds of principle are fully entitled to organise opposition to that treatment of the Bill in a dignified and efficient way. That, I think, has been the aim of hon. Members opposed to this Bill from both sides of the House.
There was only one moment I think during the evening—and that turned out to be a misunderstanding—when there was a question about lingering in the Lobby. Certainly there was no plan to linger in the Lobby. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]

Mr. C. Pannell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Just before you resumed the Chair the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) was given the right to the Floor out of respect to a promise which had been made. If we are to be ruled by your predecessor in the Chair, I must tell you that when you were not present, Mr. Speaker ruled most emphatically that there had been dilatoriness. He also had to threaten to name two hon. Members. It is not for the hon. Member now to reflect on Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I was one of the Tellers concerned in that Division and addressed Mr. Speaker afterwards, I know that Mr. Speaker did not rule anything of the kind. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] There was one hon. Member in that Lobby who had already voted. As there was no one to clear the Lobby, the Tellers did not know whether the Lobby was empty or not, with the result that it was thought there was dilatory action in the Lobby. There was no such thing, and Mr. Speaker never said that there was.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, order.

Mr. Frederic Harris: Mr. Frederic Harris rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not obvious to me that it helps the House in coming to a decision as to whether further consideration should be adjourned to discuss what happened in the Lobbies at an earlier stage.

Mr. Frederic Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We on this side distinctly heard the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) point across to my hon. Friend here and say the word "liar". Is this not an unparliamentary use of language?

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think I must call on the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) to withdraw that.

Mr. Pannell: I did not say he was a liar. I said, "Do not lie", which is a distinctly different matter. Out of respect for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I of course withdraw that. But I must say—[HON. MEMBERS: "No"]—I must say this. It will be within the knowledge of the Chair and of the House that the Serjeant at Arms was sent into the Lobby. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, must take cognisance of what Mr. Speaker has done during the night, in exactly the same way as Mr. Speaker took notice of your promise to the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) to have the right to speak in the debate, which right he is now abusing.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that the right hon. Gentleman has withdrawn the observation which caused offence.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I have no desire to discuss Mr. Speaker's Ruling or what he did say or what he did not say. All I would like the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) to accept is that, if there was any lingering in the Lobby, in so far as I had any responsibility for organising the opposition to the Bill that was totally unknown to me.
Finally, the debate should rightly be adjourned now, because I think that the night has shown that we are faced with a problem which is much wider now than this Bill and that which is to be considered on Monday—one of which Bills I oppose, the other of which I support. What the night's proceedings have shown—this is a point on which we should like to hear from the Leader of the House—is that we have reached the point where Private Members' Bills can be satisfactorily debated and considered only if extra time is given for them. I would like the Leader of the House to consider that point when he speaks on this Motion.

Sir S. McAdden: How I shall vote on the Motion will depend very largely on such information as can be given to the House by the sponsor of the Bill, who moved the Motion, because in moving it the hon. Gentleman made it quite clear that one of the considerations he had in mind was the business which the Chancellor of the Exchequer wants dealt with at eleven oclock.
I should like to know from the hon. Gentleman whether, by his courtesy in moving, "That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be adjourned", to the satisfaction of the Chancellor's desires, he has in return received a pledge that further Government time will be made available. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am asking the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel), through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. David Steel: No.

Sir S. McAdden: I am glad to have that assurance. Everybody will agree that it was a perfectly proper question for me to ask. Government time has been given for the consideration of the Bill so far. It is perfectly right that, before the House makes a decision as to whether to adjourn, we should ask for an assurance that there has not been some deal

done on this matter. My opinion is that the House would have done well to have adjourned further consideration a long time ago. As it has been so long delayed, I do not propose to delay it any further. Having received the assurance for which I asked, I hope that it will be borne out in the light of experience.

Mr. Percival: My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), in supporting the Motion, said how much he hoped that if it was accepted the Leader of the House would bear in mind, in deciding what further time to allot to the Bill, the fact that many hon. Members had put in a long and hard night, and it appeared that the Leader of the House was acknowledging the force of this.
Mr. Speaker, your predecessor in the Chair at the time also drew attention—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have had a long sitting. There is no reason why we should have background conversation.

Mr. Percival: I am much obliged to you, Mr. Speaker. Having waited for more than 12 hours to say something, I was not proposing to waste time by paying any attention to such behaviour, but I am grateful to you for making it easier for me to say what I have to.
As I was saying, your predecessor in the Chair drew attention to the fact that we had had 12 hours of debate. I just want to relate these two points one to the other while we have the benefit of the presence of the Leader of the House. I hope that he will be aware that although the House has had 12 hours of debate, there are many hon. Members who wished to express a point of view on a matter which, whatever one's opinion, is of great public interest, but did not have the opportunity to do so, such was the pressure of the desire to speak.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind, too, the amount of time which is necessary if we are to come to a decision, and what is more important, not only to come to a decision, but to come to the right one. Two things are necessary for this. First, we need a good deal of time so that we do not work under pressure and under the eagle eye of the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) all the time, and, secondly, that we do


our work at a reasonable time of day, a time of day which the nation will recognise as reasonable, and thus entitle the opinion we then form to receive the respect of the nation.

Mr. Frederic Harris: As one of the hon. Members who have been in the House for the last 12 hours, compared with the Leader of the House who has been missing for 11 of them—he went to sleep in the Chamber at eleven o'clock—I would like to add my support to the Motion, and in so doing press the Leader of the House to say for how long we are to adjourn consideration of this Bill. When will the Bill come before the House again, and under what circumstances? I have refrained from speaking in the debate, as have many of my hon. Friends, though my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) was unlucky not to be called, but I think that we are entitled to know what plans the Leader of the House has for the Bill in the near future.

Sir Knox Cunningham: I have not left the Chamber or the Lobbies since the debate started 12 hours ago. I tried to speak during some of the debates, but I was prevented from doing so by the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), who moved the Closure on every possible occasion during the night. My constituents feel strongly about this matter. This is why I was here, and this is why I voted on every Motion moved by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. C. Pannell: In so far as the hon. Gentleman has mentioned me, may I say that I am the Member for an English constituency with an interest in the Bill, while he is a Member for Northern Ireland, voting on our legislation.

Mr. Wilson: I do not come from Northern Ireland. I have

been here for 12 hours, for the first eight trying to speak, but I was not fortunate enough to catch Mr. Speaker's eye. We have had a serious debate on very important matters. Serious points were put, and many hon. Members tried to speak. I hope that the impression will not get abroad that it was a filibuster. It certainly was not.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I fully support the Motion. I imagine that it would now be most convenient to the House to hear the Leader of the House. We wish the right hon. Gentleman a very good morning. He has come to us with the sunshine. Perhaps he will now disclose his intentions.

10.15 a.m.

Sir D. Glover: The Leader of the House has had the House here for 12 hours, from ten o'clock last night, on a most controversial Bill. He ought now to tell us what his intentions for the progress of the Bill are.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Crossman): First, I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) for what he said. We shall think over it. As for our intentions about the Bill, we must await the next business statement.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered upon Monday next.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT

Resolved,
That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fitch.]

Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes past Ten o'clock a.m.